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
July 16, 2024, 05:09:52 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: New update from Suzanne on FB  (Read 35844 times)
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #20 on: May 21, 2018, 05:59:24 am »

Indeed, I believe a God wants the truth to come out however I believe that God does not ask us to disobey his commands for that to happen. My God is able to reveal truth without the help of people. We obey God and trust that God will work out the results. The God I serve has shown that to be true over and over in his word and in my own life.
Logged
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #21 on: May 21, 2018, 06:01:52 am »


Considering the accusations I think God would desire the truth be told. 

I think God wants us to obey his word “Let our yes be yes and our no be no”
Logged
Greentruth
Guest

« Reply #22 on: May 21, 2018, 06:42:39 am »


Considering the accusations I think God would desire the truth be told. 

I think God wants us to obey his word “Let our yes be yes and our no be no”

I remember verses saying not to withhold truths or allow lies for His followers to be persecuted. Something is very suspicious of all this, and I do pray for the whole truth to be shown. And just saying for myself, I would not have signed any such gag order given the supposed facts John had in the first place, and surely would not  have honored it given the current situation. And it still doesn’t make any sense why  Suzanne would hold it back until now. Something is very suspicious with all this.
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #23 on: May 21, 2018, 07:07:18 am »

I said 5 women who have spoken with Joan.  Not total number of victims, which I believe to be 9 now.

So, 5 women have gone to Joan to say that Mark's interactions with them were sexual in nature. 


I agree.  Honestly I'm surprised, I didn't think she would but I think this decreases the chances for a "false negative."  This is, according to my count, at least 5 women who have spoken with Joan.  Before the news story Suzanne said there were 3, and since then there is the NDA woman and Suzanne. 

Although I can't for the life of me picture what the BOT will do if they receive the results and it is written that Mark did commit clergy sexual abuse or misconduct.  First of all, I feel bad for them because it will be devastating news on many levels.  Second, they will be faced with a very tough choice.  If NDA's have been signed and this cover-up has been going on for YEARS, who knows how the BOT is being "influenced" internally.  I don't think strangers are going to be their biggest source of pressure at this point.  Who knows what methods would be used to continue the cover-up?



I'm glad Suzanne has finally decided to tell her story to Joan Harris. I understand why she refused before, but still, I think it's fitting and important that the person who first brought the problem to light is cooperating with the investigation.

I thought Suzanne said they're were 7, not 3, on one of her fb posts Huh Huh Huh
Logged
Mary7
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 18



« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2018, 07:09:57 am »

Edited to remove information I shared and decided to un-share, none of it pertaining to Suzanne.

Are there innocent reasons to issue a non-disclosure agreement?
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 07:48:21 am by Mary7 » Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2018, 07:49:45 am »


Considering the accusations I think God would desire the truth be told. 

I think God wants us to obey his word “Let our yes be yes and our no be no”

I remember verses saying not to withhold truths or allow lies for His followers to be persecuted. Something is very suspicious of all this, and I do pray for the whole truth to be shown. And just saying for myself, I would not have signed any such gag order given the supposed facts John had in the first place, and surely would not  have honored it given the current situation. And it still doesn’t make any sense why  Suzanne would hold it back until now. Something is very suspicious with all this.

Stranger things have happened, but wow, I agree with GT on this Smiley..If sexual impropriety happened, it was wrong for any pastor to have signed an NDA to hide it and "breaking their word" and exposing this would have been the right thing at any time after signing it.  Some promises should not be made and once wrongly made should not be kept.
Logged
Godtrumpsall
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142



« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2018, 07:56:21 am »

Quote from: GTA
I thought Suzanne said they're were 7, not 3, on one of her fb posts.

The number of women who have contacted Suzanne is different than the number of women who have spoken to Joan. As is evident from reading Rebel’s comment, she is referring to women who have spoken with Joan.

Quote from: RIAGW
This is, according to my count, at least 5 women who have spoken with Joan.  Before the news story Suzanne said there were 3, and since then there is the NDA woman and Suzanne.

My understanding is prior to the report, 7 women had contacted Suzanne. After the report, 2 more came forward. 5 of the 9 have spoken with Joan. 4 do not wish to speak with her, but I don’t know that for sure.

Question: Will you at all be troubled if an NDA exists that was signed by several pastors that involved accusations of sexual impropriety?

 







Got it.
Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2018, 07:58:14 am »

Edited to remove information I shared and decided to un-share, none of it pertaining to Suzanne.

Are there innocent reasons to issue a non-disclosure agreement?

Hey Mary - I read your post before you took it down. No judgment from me - just consider that although speaking out may cause visible distress to a person's family, etc., Silence may do more harm (e.g., how many others are being or have been hurt by allowing this secret to be maintained).  Keeping one's word is important but in my mind there are principals that can trump that.  Per my earlier post on the NDA situation - some promises should never be made and once made it's okay in my mind to fix the mistake that was made in making that promise (by breaking it).  But just my opinion..To me it sounds like you've been carrying a burden for a long time that should not have been yours to carry, which I am sure has been hard.

To answer your question, I am hard pressed to think of any positive, good, innocent reason for a signed NDA document in a church setting.
Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #28 on: May 21, 2018, 08:13:05 am »

Quote from: GTA
I thought Suzanne said they're were 7, not 3, on one of her fb posts.

The number of women who have contacted Suzanne is different than the number of women who have spoken to Joan. As is evident from reading Rebel’s comment, she is referring to women who have spoken with Joan.

Quote from: RIAGW
This is, according to my count, at least 5 women who have spoken with Joan.  Before the news story Suzanne said there were 3, and since then there is the NDA woman and Suzanne.

My understanding is prior to the report, 7 women had contacted Suzanne. After the report, 2 more came forward. 5 of the 9 have spoken with Joan. 4 do not wish to speak with her, but I don’t know that for sure.

Question: Will you at all be troubled if an NDA exists that was signed by several pastors that involved accusations of sexual impropriety?

 







Got it.
My understanding is that possibly 6 women have spoke with Joan (including Suzanne)
1) Before Fox9 Suzanne said 3 women had spoken with Joan - Assumption is Natalie, Victim A (quoted on Fox9) Victim C
2) Loey posted on Suzanne's FB page - based on the way Suzanne worded her latest update I am assuming Loey is NOT NDA woman (hate this nomenclature).  Suzanne also said TWO women reached out to her after Fox9, which tracks with Loey and NDA woman being 2 different people
3) Suzanne indicated she will speak or has spoken to Joan..

So I think the full list of women who have made allegations to Joan is:

1) Victim C
2) Natalie
3) Victim A
4) Loey
5) NDA woman (I hate calling her that)
6) Suzanne
Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1071



« Reply #29 on: May 21, 2018, 08:16:11 am »

Stranger things have happened, but wow, I agree with GT on this Smiley..If sexual impropriety happened, it was wrong for any pastor to have signed an NDA to hide it and "breaking their word" and exposing this would have been the right thing at any time after signing it.  Some promises should not be made and once wrongly made should not be kept.

I completely agree with this. The Apostle Paul told us, "Do not participate in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead, expose them."

And, Mary7, I agree that you were handed a burden that wasn't yours to bear.
Logged
Mary7
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 18



« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2018, 08:30:31 am »

Edited to remove information I shared and decided to un-share, none of it pertaining to Suzanne.

Are there innocent reasons to issue a non-disclosure agreement?

Hey Mary - I read your post before you took it down. No judgment from me - just consider that although speaking out may cause visible distress to a person's family, etc., Silence may do more harm (e.g., how many others are being or have been hurt by allowing this secret to be maintained).  Keeping one's word is important but in my mind there are principals that can trump that.  Per my earlier post on the NDA situation - some promises should never be made and once made it's okay in my mind to fix the mistake that was made in making that promise (by breaking it).  But just my opinion..To me it sounds like you've been carrying a burden for a long time that should not have been yours to carry, which I am sure has been hard.

To answer your question, I am hard pressed to think of any positive, good, innocent reason for a signed NDA document in a church setting.


DV, I think you are right and you just made me cry.  Reading about the NDA this morning and then reading the responses has caused me to question the role I’ve been taking in keeping sin quiet. There are kinds of crimes that should be obviously reported and then there are kinds of situations you just hope will go away if enough time has passed. (I’m identifying with far more people in the MD/Suzanne situation than I ever realized) Prayers for wisdom would be appreciated— for me and for anyone who has made promises or contracts that they are questioning.
Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2018, 08:42:32 am »

I'll keep you in my prayers Mary - regardless of what you decide, just remember God's grace and love are more powerful that we can imagine and you are wrapped in that, as are any believers in the situation.
Logged
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #32 on: May 21, 2018, 08:55:31 am »

Yes, I can see how those that have signed NDAs are in a difficult position. I do believe that there may be a time and place to break that “promise” as keeping it would be equivalent to lying by omission. I stand corrected.
Logged
Digital Lynch Mob
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238



« Reply #33 on: May 21, 2018, 09:01:01 am »

This "new revelation" just doesn't make any sense. Why would other Pastors sign an NDA in 1996? But let's suppose that did happen for the sake of argument - would John really hold to that agreement through all of this?! No way. No one would bury this fact after his own wife was allegedly abused. It just doesn't pass any test of credibility.

I'm also confused by Suzanne's statement. Is she saying she knew of this woman and kept it quiet until now? But then she also mentioned calling her "NDA woman" where and when did she do that? I don't recall ever seeing such a statement.

Logged
UffDa
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2018, 09:34:10 am »

Hmmm...I wonder if Nick Wenner, a long time ECC member, ECC BOT member, and attorney, drafted or filed the NDA.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 09:38:31 am by UffDa » Logged
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« Reply #35 on: May 21, 2018, 10:33:28 am »

I can't help but think a non-disclosure and unofficial "no talk" rules in this situation would have been spiritualized in some way by GCx senior leadership.  We are not to bring false accusations... It's one young woman seeking the spotlight...  It's gossip... Leaders can't continue the gossip...  It would harm God's image... It is tarnishing a leader's good fruits and reputation...etc.

I don't think such justifications are that far from reality.  We have seen current members supporting Mark and questioning victims with such statements on this forum, Facebook, and Twitter.

Minor leaders and laity are under the authority and direction of more senior leaders in GCx churches.  One has to be very mature and sound in his or her faith to go against senior church leaders making a case that to go against their advice is sin.  One has to be extremely confident in their faith and themselves to stand up to such authoritative counsel. 

Quote
Lastly, if an appeal does not bring about a change of direction, we should submit to any command that is not a clear violation of God’s will as revealed in His word, believing that God will use our submission
even to a command that we view as harmful. Typically, such submission, even to an unwise or hurtful command, will cause less damage to us, to others, or to the glory of God than would outright
disobedience. - David Bovenmyer - Commitment to God and His Word; God-Honoring Authority - Great Commission Leadership Institute

The above is from the GCLI manual in which GCx leaders are trained.  An individual must to be extremely confident in his or her faith and judgment to stand against "God-Honoring Authority" telling them otherwise.  If the underlings are wrong (the issue was only harmful and not sinful) they are causing more damage to "the glory of God."  Furthermore, they need to confident that talking about the issue at all, or talking about it to others, isn't allowing themselves to become a "tool of the Devil."

Quote
The devil (“diabolos”) is a destroyer and an accuser of the brethren (Revelation 12:9-10). Whenever we slander or co-operate with slander, WE BECOME A TOOL OF THE DEVIL to accomplish his work. - GCx Co-founder Herschel Martindale in GCx publication 


I am not in anyway condoning anyone covering up abuse in the church.  I do want to give grace to individuals that allowed GCx leaders and doctrine to make it difficult to speak about abuse they experienced or became aware of.  Such doctrine used followers' sincere faith and desire to please God while enabling leaders to continue to hide and perpetuate abuse in the church.
Logged
Digital Lynch Mob
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238



« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2018, 11:12:47 am »

Badger, first, GCLI at Evergreen never gives any expectations of following leaders to places scripture does not take you. I'm not a fan of the passages you site, but at no time does anyone ever suggest following your leaders to places God was not leading. Never!

Secondly, we are talking about other Pastors allegedly signing an NDA, not "minor leaders and laity." The justification you laid out would not work for the Pastors I know. These aren't scared kids but leaders of the church.

Third, had John signed such an agreement is it reasonable to think that he actually lived up to it...for 22 years? In the current situation?
« Last Edit: May 21, 2018, 12:12:47 pm by Digital Lynch Mob » Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1071



« Reply #37 on: May 21, 2018, 03:22:15 pm »

Third, had John signed such an agreement is it reasonable to think that he actually lived up to it...for 22 years? In the current situation?

Depending on how the NDA was worded, he might have been afraid of  legal repercussions. Of course, I don't know this to be the case, but it seems well within the realm of possibility. Without any further explanation from him, we're all left with quite a few questions.
Logged
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« Reply #38 on: May 21, 2018, 04:08:34 pm »

Badger, first, GCLI at Evergreen never gives any expectations of following leaders to places scripture does not take you. I'm not a fan of the passages you site, but at no time does anyone ever suggest following your leaders to places God was not leading. Never!

DLM, GCLI is centrally run.  I cannot help it if you don't like the passage I used; I don't like it either.  The GCLI article was last reviewed in 2017; it was downloaded recently from gccweb.com.  John Hopler is in charge of the GCLI materials, perhaps you should direct your concerns to him rather than lecturing me that this isn't part of your church's cannon.

Secondly, we are talking about other Pastors allegedly signing an NDA, not "minor leaders and laity." The justification you laid out would not work for the Pastors I know. These aren't scared kids but leaders of the church.

I'm glad you feel such justification would not work for your Pastors.  May I remind you, the reason you are on this forum currently is because there are multiple allegations of your pastors perpetuating and covering up abuse in your church.  Are you really sure you "know" your pastors as well as you think?

Logged
Digital Lynch Mob
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238



« Reply #39 on: May 21, 2018, 05:58:01 pm »

DLM, GCLI is centrally run.  I cannot help it if you don't like the passage I used; I don't like it either.  The GCLI article was last reviewed in 2017; it was downloaded recently from gccweb.com.  John Hopler is in charge of the GCLI materials, perhaps you should direct your concerns to him rather than lecturing me that this isn't part of your church's cannon.

I'm glad you feel such justification would not work for your Pastors.  May I remind you, the reason you are on this forum currently is because there are multiple allegations of your pastors perpetuating and covering up abuse in your church.  Are you really sure you "know" your pastors as well as you think?
Strange, I thought I was agreeing with you on the point not lecturing you, but if you'd rather just argue that's cool too. On your other point, yeah, I'm positive.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


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