How Do You Make Things Right (or What is a True Apology)

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]

Ever since the announcement of the BOT results a few weeks ago, I've been thinking about what a sincere apology would look like.

I think we all understand that a generic apology such as, "I’m sorry for abusing you and or not dealing with the person who abused you. Hope you can move on from this quickly," is not adequate.

It's perhaps easier to understand if you think about stealing something from someone. In the case of theft, it's not enough for the thief to say, "I'm sorry I took your diamond ring. Please forgive me." The thief needs to return the ring to show he is sincere. He may also go to jail because sometimes, even though our sin is forgiven by God and the offended person, our sin has corporate and/or legal consequences. For example, a banker who embezzled would be fired AND probably go to jail even if he paid back all the money and the owner of the bank forgave him.

So, how does this apply to Suzanne and the victims? What should a sincere apology look like? Here are a few thoughts.

First of all, an apology has to be personal. The offender needs to apologize privately (could be via email). It needs to be specific. It needs to come from each person who offended. It needs to specifically list what is being apologized for, not just a general statement like, "I know we offended you by what we did or didn't do and we are so sorry."

What has been lacking to many of us watching this unfold is a sense that ECC leaders really understand the depth of the harm done by the improper actions of one pastor and the "lack of follow through" (euphemism for "cover up") regarding the agreed upon correction that never happened.

I'll start with a list of some (obviously not all) of damage just for one victim:

1. Loss of job/ministry for the van Dycks and others

The van Dycks went to Berlin with the understanding that the agreed upon corrective plan for Mark would happen. When they learned it had not, they confronted ECC leadership about it and decided to leave Berlin/ECC/GCM. Here is the critical thing. ECC, at this point was reminded of their failed "follow up". They were given a second chance to do the right thing. INSTEAD, THEY KEPT THE EMPLOYEE WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER CORRECTION AND LET THE VAN DYCKS GO!" This fact should not be overlooked.

2. Strain on finances, marriage, family.

How do you even begin to understand and apologize for the complexities of the stress on a marriage and family of moving your family to Berlin, and then back from Berlin, and returning without a job or a place to live? Keep in mind, there were other families in Berlin who came home when the van Dycks left. So many families lives were uprooted by the fact that when given a SECOND chance to do the right thing, ECC chose to not proceed with the agreed upon plan of correction.

3. Public rebuke and humiliation of Suzanne and the victims

We've all heard it. The sermons from many elders on Shimei, or on how unkind and unfair this was. We've heard she was wrong to take it to social media. Classic blame shifting. Plus, had she not taken this to social media, nothing would have happened. We wouldn't be discussing this now. It was the only way for her and the others to be heard. ECC had at least TWO chances to fix this in 2001 and 2003 (when the van Dycks stated their reasons for leaving) and they chose not to. Why would anyone in their right mind approach ECC leadership again?

If ECC is sincere in their desire to make this right here is where they need to start:

1. Each pastor involved needs to privately, individually (not corporately), and sincerely apologize to each victim for SPECIFIC offenses. Part of making an apology is confessing, repenting, and sincerely apologizing. Another part is making amends. A good place to start might be to ask the victims what can be done to help them overcome the trauma caused by bad shepherding. It might even involve retroactive reimbursement for years of counseling that many required to help them move on.

2. Each pastor involved needs to publicly and sincerely take back all the blame shifting sermons and Tweets critical of Suzanne and the victims.

Anyone else have any thoughts on what true repentance would look like on the part of ECC elders?

[PietWowo]

Ever since the announcement of the BOT results a few weeks ago, I've been thinking about what a sincere apology would look like.

I think we all understand that a generic apology such as, "I’m sorry for abusing you and or not dealing with the person who abused you. Hope you can move on from this quickly," is not adequate.

It's perhaps easier to understand if you think about stealing something from someone. In the case of theft, it's not enough for the thief to say, "I'm sorry I took your diamond ring. Please forgive me." The thief needs to return the ring to show he is sincere. He may also go to jail because sometimes, even though our sin is forgiven by God and the offended person, our sin has corporate and/or legal consequences. For example, a banker who embezzled would be fired AND probably go to jail even if he paid back all the money and the owner of the bank forgave him.

So, how does this apply to Suzanne and the victims? What should a sincere apology look like? Here are a few thoughts.

First of all, an apology has to be personal. The offender needs to apologize privately (could be via email). It needs to be specific. It needs to come from each person who offended. It needs to specifically list what is being apologized for, not just a general statement like, "I know we offended you by what we did or didn't do and we are so sorry."

What has been lacking to many of us watching this unfold is a sense that ECC leaders really understand the depth of the harm done by the improper actions of one pastor and the "lack of follow through" (euphemism for "cover up") regarding the agreed upon correction that never happened.

I'll start with a list of some (obviously not all) of damage just for one victim:

1. Loss of job/ministry for the van Dycks and others

The van Dycks went to Berlin with the understanding that the agreed upon corrective plan for Mark would happen. When they learned it had not, they confronted ECC leadership about it and decided to leave Berlin/ECC/GCM. Here is the critical thing. ECC, at this point was reminded of their failed "follow up". They were given a second chance to do the right thing. INSTEAD, THEY KEPT THE EMPLOYEE WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER CORRECTION AND LET THE VAN DYCKS GO!" This fact should not be overlooked.

2. Strain on finances, marriage, family.

How do you even begin to understand and apologize for the complexities of the stress on a marriage and family of moving your family to Berlin, and then back from Berlin, and returning without a job or a place to live? Keep in mind, there were other families in Berlin who came home when the van Dycks left. So many families lives were uprooted by the fact that when given a SECOND chance to do the right thing, ECC chose to not proceed with the agreed upon plan of correction.

3. Public rebuke and humiliation of Suzanne and the victims

We've all heard it. The sermons from many elders on Shimei, or on how unkind and unfair this was. We've heard she was wrong to take it to social media. Classic blame shifting. Plus, had she not taken this to social media, nothing would have happened. We wouldn't be discussing this now. It was the only way for her and the others to be heard. ECC had at least TWO chances to fix this in 2001 and 2003 (when the van Dycks stated their reasons for leaving) and they chose not to. Why would anyone in their right mind approach ECC leadership again?

If ECC is sincere in their desire to make this right here is where they need to start:

1. Each pastor involved needs to privately, individually (not corporately), and sincerely apologize to each victim for SPECIFIC offenses. Part of making amends is confessing, repenting, and sincerely apologizing. Another part is making amends. A good place to start might be to ask the victims what can be done to help them overcome the trauma caused by bad shepherding. It might even involve retroactive reimbursement for years of counseling that many required to help them move on.

2. Each pastor involved needs to publicly and sincerely take back all the blame shifting sermons and Tweets critical of Suzanne and the victims.

Anyone else have any thoughts on what true repentance would look like on the part of ECC elders?

Generally, you're right, but in this case the pastor in question, Mark Darling didn't do what she said she did.... So... it wouldn't apply, but yes, if you say what happened, indeed happened it should be done that way at the very least.

[Linda]

Ever since the announcement of the BOT results a few weeks ago, I've been thinking about what a sincere apology would look like.

I think we all understand that a generic apology such as, "I’m sorry for abusing you and or not dealing with the person who abused you. Hope you can move on from this quickly," is not adequate.

It's perhaps easier to understand if you think about stealing something from someone. In the case of theft, it's not enough for the thief to say, "I'm sorry I took your diamond ring. Please forgive me." The thief needs to return the ring to show he is sincere. He may also go to jail because sometimes, even though our sin is forgiven by God and the offended person, our sin has corporate and/or legal consequences. For example, a banker who embezzled would be fired AND probably go to jail even if he paid back all the money and the owner of the bank forgave him.

So, how does this apply to Suzanne and the victims? What should a sincere apology look like? Here are a few thoughts.

First of all, an apology has to be personal. The offender needs to apologize privately (could be via email). It needs to be specific. It needs to come from each person who offended. It needs to specifically list what is being apologized for, not just a general statement like, "I know we offended you by what we did or didn't do and we are so sorry."

What has been lacking to many of us watching this unfold is a sense that ECC leaders really understand the depth of the harm done by the improper actions of one pastor and the "lack of follow through" (euphemism for "cover up") regarding the agreed upon correction that never happened.

I'll start with a list of some (obviously not all) of damage just for one victim:

1. Loss of job/ministry for the van Dycks and others

The van Dycks went to Berlin with the understanding that the agreed upon corrective plan for Mark would happen. When they learned it had not, they confronted ECC leadership about it and decided to leave Berlin/ECC/GCM. Here is the critical thing. ECC, at this point was reminded of their failed "follow up". They were given a second chance to do the right thing. INSTEAD, THEY KEPT THE EMPLOYEE WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER CORRECTION AND LET THE VAN DYCKS GO!" This fact should not be overlooked.

2. Strain on finances, marriage, family.

How do you even begin to understand and apologize for the complexities of the stress on a marriage and family of moving your family to Berlin, and then back from Berlin, and returning without a job or a place to live? Keep in mind, there were other families in Berlin who came home when the van Dycks left. So many families lives were uprooted by the fact that when given a SECOND chance to do the right thing, ECC chose to not proceed with the agreed upon plan of correction.

3. Public rebuke and humiliation of Suzanne and the victims

We've all heard it. The sermons from many elders on Shimei, or on how unkind and unfair this was. We've heard she was wrong to take it to social media. Classic blame shifting. Plus, had she not taken this to social media, nothing would have happened. We wouldn't be discussing this now. It was the only way for her and the others to be heard. ECC had at least TWO chances to fix this in 2001 and 2003 (when the van Dycks stated their reasons for leaving) and they chose not to. Why would anyone in their right mind approach ECC leadership again?

If ECC is sincere in their desire to make this right here is where they need to start:

1. Each pastor involved needs to privately, individually (not corporately), and sincerely apologize to each victim for SPECIFIC offenses. Part of making amends is confessing, repenting, and sincerely apologizing. Another part is making amends. A good place to start might be to ask the victims what can be done to help them overcome the trauma caused by bad shepherding. It might even involve retroactive reimbursement for years of counseling that many required to help them move on.

2. Each pastor involved needs to publicly and sincerely take back all the blame shifting sermons and Tweets critical of Suzanne and the victims.

Anyone else have any thoughts on what true repentance would look like on the part of ECC elders?

Generally, you're right, but in this case the pastor in question, Mark Darling didn't do what she said she did.... So... it wouldn't apply, but yes, if you say what happened, indeed happened it should be done that way at the very least.

Since you seem to have "insider" knowledge about Mark Darling, are you saying Mark never met alone with Suzanne? Are you saying Mark never met alone with any other women? Are you saying Mark Darling never asked detailed questions about specifics of anyone's sex life?

That said, I was referring to what ECC should do if they sincerely regret their actions (or in this case their inaction) and wish to make things right. The statement read and sermons preached regarding the BOT findings did not address the harm done by the pastor's inaction and failure to protect the "sheep".  ECC has, in fact, acknowledged that there was inappropriate behavior (time alone with women and inappropriate conversation of a sexual nature). I understand that Mark Darling denies the charges, although he has never made a public statement of denial.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

I have very little to add because I think you addressed things so well.  Especially this:

First of all, an apology has to be personal. The offender needs to apologize privately (could be via email). It needs to be specific. It needs to come from each person who offended. It needs to specifically list what is being apologized for, not just a general statement like, "I know we offended you by what we did or didn't do and we are so sorry."

What has been lacking to many of us watching this unfold is a sense that ECC leaders really understand the depth of the harm done by the improper actions of one pastor and the "lack of follow through" (euphemism for "cover up") regarding the agreed upon correction that never happened.

I would add:

I believe they need to bring in some experts on abuse in churches.  I see they are consulting a law firm, and that seems wise from an employment angle.  However, this is a church.  There needs to be human resource work, but there also needs to be pastoral care and repairing what happened within the body of Christ.  I would suggest that they would contact some of the following people knowledgeable about abuse in church and ask for referrals or advice on how to proceed.  Their response needs to be trauma informed because abuse results in trauma.

I chose mostly men so they might consider their voices authoritative.
Wade Mullen
Mike Phillips
Brad Sargent
Boz Tchividjian
Julia Dahl
Ashley Easter from the Courage Conference

It is clear that they are approaching this with much legal advice and focusing on the employment aspect.  How does that feel to victims when ECC treats this as a job-related problem when for the victims it affected every area of their lives because ECC pastors wanted submission in every area of their lives?  I think you touched on that when you mentioned the apologies need to be personal.  The abuse was personal.  I guess I reiterate that because I haven't heard anyone taken personal ownership in a way that displays godly sorrow (other than for their own reputations).

So the victims need personal apologies and time to process those and wrestle with how that feels.  And even decide whether it's an acceptable apology (we've talked about that often on here, it's been written about elsewhere--there are good apologies and bad apologies).  After that, once everything possible has been done with those closest to the situation, the church should release a general statement and apology once they understand the victims find it sincere.  Or their attorney signs off on it  

If the church offers the victims any input into their next steps, the victims should be allowed to participate in whatever manner possible (through a surrogate, with other people, etc).  Like in Willowcreek, the leadership took the wheel and ignored victims and their supporters.  They really should have listened at every step along the way.  Any restoration needs to have lots of victim input.  This whole situation so far feels like it has had LEGAL input.  That's fine for any other business or organization.  This is a church, a group they teach is family, where they ask for a commitment, ask for money, ask people for service, functions in the name of Jesus, etc.  I don't think Jesus would consult his lawyer and filter his words through them.  Jesus cared for the "least of these," so if victims make a request that can be met, that request should be met.  

I just want to second what you wrote in the first place.  It's hard to add to it.

[PietWowo]

Ever since the announcement of the BOT results a few weeks ago, I've been thinking about what a sincere apology would look like.

I think we all understand that a generic apology such as, "I’m sorry for abusing you and or not dealing with the person who abused you. Hope you can move on from this quickly," is not adequate.

It's perhaps easier to understand if you think about stealing something from someone. In the case of theft, it's not enough for the thief to say, "I'm sorry I took your diamond ring. Please forgive me." The thief needs to return the ring to show he is sincere. He may also go to jail because sometimes, even though our sin is forgiven by God and the offended person, our sin has corporate and/or legal consequences. For example, a banker who embezzled would be fired AND probably go to jail even if he paid back all the money and the owner of the bank forgave him.

So, how does this apply to Suzanne and the victims? What should a sincere apology look like? Here are a few thoughts.

First of all, an apology has to be personal. The offender needs to apologize privately (could be via email). It needs to be specific. It needs to come from each person who offended. It needs to specifically list what is being apologized for, not just a general statement like, "I know we offended you by what we did or didn't do and we are so sorry."

What has been lacking to many of us watching this unfold is a sense that ECC leaders really understand the depth of the harm done by the improper actions of one pastor and the "lack of follow through" (euphemism for "cover up") regarding the agreed upon correction that never happened.

I'll start with a list of some (obviously not all) of damage just for one victim:

1. Loss of job/ministry for the van Dycks and others

The van Dycks went to Berlin with the understanding that the agreed upon corrective plan for Mark would happen. When they learned it had not, they confronted ECC leadership about it and decided to leave Berlin/ECC/GCM. Here is the critical thing. ECC, at this point was reminded of their failed "follow up". They were given a second chance to do the right thing. INSTEAD, THEY KEPT THE EMPLOYEE WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER CORRECTION AND LET THE VAN DYCKS GO!" This fact should not be overlooked.

2. Strain on finances, marriage, family.

How do you even begin to understand and apologize for the complexities of the stress on a marriage and family of moving your family to Berlin, and then back from Berlin, and returning without a job or a place to live? Keep in mind, there were other families in Berlin who came home when the van Dycks left. So many families lives were uprooted by the fact that when given a SECOND chance to do the right thing, ECC chose to not proceed with the agreed upon plan of correction.

3. Public rebuke and humiliation of Suzanne and the victims

We've all heard it. The sermons from many elders on Shimei, or on how unkind and unfair this was. We've heard she was wrong to take it to social media. Classic blame shifting. Plus, had she not taken this to social media, nothing would have happened. We wouldn't be discussing this now. It was the only way for her and the others to be heard. ECC had at least TWO chances to fix this in 2001 and 2003 (when the van Dycks stated their reasons for leaving) and they chose not to. Why would anyone in their right mind approach ECC leadership again?

If ECC is sincere in their desire to make this right here is where they need to start:

1. Each pastor involved needs to privately, individually (not corporately), and sincerely apologize to each victim for SPECIFIC offenses. Part of making amends is confessing, repenting, and sincerely apologizing. Another part is making amends. A good place to start might be to ask the victims what can be done to help them overcome the trauma caused by bad shepherding. It might even involve retroactive reimbursement for years of counseling that many required to help them move on.

2. Each pastor involved needs to publicly and sincerely take back all the blame shifting sermons and Tweets critical of Suzanne and the victims.

Anyone else have any thoughts on what true repentance would look like on the part of ECC elders?

Generally, you're right, but in this case the pastor in question, Mark Darling didn't do what she said she did.... So... it wouldn't apply, but yes, if you say what happened, indeed happened it should be done that way at the very least.

Since you seem to have "insider" knowledge about Mark Darling, are you saying Mark never met alone with Suzanne? Are you saying Mark never met alone with any other women? Are you saying Mark Darling never asked detailed questions about specifics of anyone's sex life?

That said, I was referring to what ECC should do if they sincerely regret their actions (or in this case their inaction) and wish to make things right. The statement read and sermons preached regarding the BOT findings did not address the harm done by the pastor's inaction and failure to protect the "sheep".  ECC has, in fact, acknowledged that there was inappropriate behavior (time alone with women and inappropriate conversation of a sexual nature). I understand that Mark Darling denies the charges, although he has never made a public statement of denial.

Yes. to all of the above questions. I don't believe the allegations.

[Linda]

Bump.

Ever since the announcement of the BOT results a few weeks ago, I've been thinking about what a sincere apology would look like.

I think we all understand that a generic apology such as, "I’m sorry for abusing you and or not dealing with the person who abused you. Hope you can move on from this quickly," is not adequate.

It's perhaps easier to understand if you think about stealing something from someone. In the case of theft, it's not enough for the thief to say, "I'm sorry I took your diamond ring. Please forgive me." The thief needs to return the ring to show he is sincere. He may also go to jail because sometimes, even though our sin is forgiven by God and the offended person, our sin has corporate and/or legal consequences. For example, a banker who embezzled would be fired AND probably go to jail even if he paid back all the money and the owner of the bank forgave him.

So, how does this apply to Suzanne and the victims? What should a sincere apology look like? Here are a few thoughts.

First of all, an apology has to be personal. The offender needs to apologize privately (could be via email). It needs to be specific. It needs to come from each person who offended. It needs to specifically list what is being apologized for, not just a general statement like, "I know we offended you by what we did or didn't do and we are so sorry."

What has been lacking to many of us watching this unfold is a sense that ECC leaders really understand the depth of the harm done by the improper actions of one pastor and the "lack of follow through" (euphemism for "cover up") regarding the agreed upon correction that never happened.

I'll start with a list of some (obviously not all) of damage just for one victim:

1. Loss of job/ministry for the van Dycks and others

The van Dycks went to Berlin with the understanding that the agreed upon corrective plan for Mark would happen. When they learned it had not, they confronted ECC leadership about it and decided to leave Berlin/ECC/GCM. Here is the critical thing. ECC, at this point was reminded of their failed "follow up". They were given a second chance to do the right thing. INSTEAD, THEY KEPT THE EMPLOYEE WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE UNDER CORRECTION AND LET THE VAN DYCKS GO!" This fact should not be overlooked.

2. Strain on finances, marriage, family.

How do you even begin to understand and apologize for the complexities of the stress on a marriage and family of moving your family to Berlin, and then back from Berlin, and returning without a job or a place to live? Keep in mind, there were other families in Berlin who came home when the van Dycks left. So many families lives were uprooted by the fact that when given a SECOND chance to do the right thing, ECC chose to not proceed with the agreed upon plan of correction.

3. Public rebuke and humiliation of Suzanne and the victims

We've all heard it. The sermons from many elders on Shimei, or on how unkind and unfair this was. We've heard she was wrong to take it to social media. Classic blame shifting. Plus, had she not taken this to social media, nothing would have happened. We wouldn't be discussing this now. It was the only way for her and the others to be heard. ECC had at least TWO chances to fix this in 2001 and 2003 (when the van Dycks stated their reasons for leaving) and they chose not to. Why would anyone in their right mind approach ECC leadership again?

If ECC is sincere in their desire to make this right here is where they need to start:

1. Each pastor involved needs to privately, individually (not corporately), and sincerely apologize to each victim for SPECIFIC offenses. Part of making an apology is confessing, repenting, and sincerely apologizing. Another part is making amends. A good place to start might be to ask the victims what can be done to help them overcome the trauma caused by bad shepherding. It might even involve retroactive reimbursement for years of counseling that many required to help them move on.

2. Each pastor involved needs to publicly and sincerely take back all the blame shifting sermons and Tweets critical of Suzanne and the victims.

Anyone else have any thoughts on what true repentance would look like on the part of ECC elders?

[Linda]

Bump

From Rebel in a Good Way:

I have very little to add because I think you addressed things so well.  Especially this:

Quote from: Linda on Today at 07:28:40 am
First of all, an apology has to be personal. The offender needs to apologize privately (could be via email). It needs to be specific. It needs to come from each person who offended. It needs to specifically list what is being apologized for, not just a general statement like, "I know we offended you by what we did or didn't do and we are so sorry."

What has been lacking to many of us watching this unfold is a sense that ECC leaders really understand the depth of the harm done by the improper actions of one pastor and the "lack of follow through" (euphemism for "cover up") regarding the agreed upon correction that never happened.


I would add:

I believe they need to bring in some experts on abuse in churches.  I see they are consulting a law firm, and that seems wise from an employment angle.  However, this is a church.  There needs to be human resource work, but there also needs to be pastoral care and repairing what happened within the body of Christ.  I would suggest that they would contact some of the following people knowledgeable about abuse in church and ask for referrals or advice on how to proceed.  Their response needs to be trauma informed because abuse results in trauma.

I chose mostly men so they might consider their voices authoritative.
Wade Mullen
Mike Phillips
Brad Sargent
Boz Tchividjian
Julia Dahl
Ashley Easter from the Courage Conference

It is clear that they are approaching this with much legal advice and focusing on the employment aspect.  How does that feel to victims when ECC treats this as a job-related problem when for the victims it affected every area of their lives because ECC pastors wanted submission in every area of their lives?  I think you touched on that when you mentioned the apologies need to be personal.  The abuse was personal.  I guess I reiterate that because I haven't heard anyone taken personal ownership in a way that displays godly sorrow (other than for their own reputations).

So the victims need personal apologies and time to process those and wrestle with how that feels.  And even decide whether it's an acceptable apology (we've talked about that often on here, it's been written about elsewhere--there are good apologies and bad apologies).  After that, once everything possible has been done with those closest to the situation, the church should release a general statement and apology once they understand the victims find it sincere.  Or their attorney signs off on it  Undecided

If the church offers the victims any input into their next steps, the victims should be allowed to participate in whatever manner possible (through a surrogate, with other people, etc).  Like in Willowcreek, the leadership took the wheel and ignored victims and their supporters.  They really should have listened at every step along the way.  Any restoration needs to have lots of victim input.  This whole situation so far feels like it has had LEGAL input.  That's fine for any other business or organization.  This is a church, a group they teach is family, where they ask for a commitment, ask for money, ask people for service, functions in the name of Jesus, etc.  I don't think Jesus would consult his lawyer and filter his words through them.  Jesus cared for the "least of these," so if victims make a request that can be met, that request should be met. 

I just want to second what you wrote in the first place.  It's hard to add to it.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

I'm curious, PWW if you do not believe any of the allegations, why are you coming to this forum to try to make your point?  Many of us have stated that we believe the women, and have since Day 1.  Other people came on here to defend Mark, tell us the investigation would reveal the truth, call us bad Christians, tell us it is wrong to publicly address corrupt church leadership, etc.  They have all left, except Isthisreal? who must be using forum members as a target for his/her frustration as I'm sure this is a difficult time for him/her.

If you really believe Mark is innocent, why are you not focusing your time and energy addressing ECC directly?  Why aren't you in contact with Mark, consoling him for his magnificent suffering of injustice?  Add a snippet to his pro-Mark website?  Contact Fox 9 to let them know of the travesty they have committed? Why not start a Gofundme page to collect financial support for him to sue the victims who have gone public AND ECC?  I mean, he would have a slam dunk case for libel (legal definition, not GCC's definition) according to you.   

If we are all so deceived to believe the victims and bad Christians, our ramblings here would merit no attention.  If we were all just bitter and angry with no life and nothing good to live for (I am adding some of ISR's assessments here but you seem to have found a commonality with him/her) and can't understand the bible without your wise interpretation, why are we any sort of threat to anyone?  Do you think this forum influences real life outcomes?  Is that why you come here?  Even though his guilt has been proven through an outside investigation and you say you haven't spoken with him for over 2 decades, but somehow you have light and truth that needs to be shared?  Why would you assume his innocence--have you done these same things and are trying to absolve your own guilt?  I'm just curious...

Yes. to all of the above questions. I don't believe the allegations.