Now What?

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.

[DarthVader]

Unless more information comes to light, nothing would surprise me at this point, we may know all we are going to..

For Mark's part, not to speak for him, but my understanding is he denies 1) spending alone time (woods, basements, anywhere) with any of the women who've come forward. 2) he also denies any physical contact as alleged (hugs w/erections, hands on legs) 3) he denies asking women for details of their sex lives or sharing details of his.  Or, to put in in the affirmative, Mark would agree completely with the statement "all my actions towards these women were consistent with best practices of pastoral care, were not inappropriate then and would not be inappropriate if repeated with any female member of ECC/The Rock today"

Is there anyone defending Mark who would disagree with anything written above? This is an important point, because if the above is, in fact, Mark's position (which he has every right to state, prove to the investigator, defend, as do any of his friends on this forum) - it does completely rule out the path of "this was largely a misunderstanding, there were some boundary issues which have since be fixed, etc.".  Those two positions are incompatible and cannot coexist, can they??

On the other side of this equation are 4 women - Suzanne, Natalie, Victim C and a fourth victim who submitted a statement to the ECC investigator but did not participate in the Fox9 story in any way. Assuming Suzanne's FB post stating that 3 women spoke to the ECC investigator is true and correct, - those 3 who interacted with the ECC investigation would be Natalie, Victim C, who did not go on camera but participated in the Fox9 story, and one other unnamed victim).  I will not rehash their stories here.

Setting aside the "coverup" aspects of this, & given Mark's vehement denials of all allegations, I think we (and presumably the ECC BOT) are left with ONLY two choices.

1) Mark's denials are accurate, his good name has been tarnished and he should be restored immediately to his pastoral role, and is owed an apology by these lying (or delusional/hurting) women and the many on this forum who have displayed ill will towards him.  OR

2) Mark's denials are compounding the sins he committed upon these women and weigh negatively in any discipline process as it reveals an unrepentant heart.  He should be removed from his role and given his complete lack of repentance or even acknowledgment of harm,  there should be no path towards restoration of his role of any kind, in the near term and probably ever.

I'm assuming all on this forum defending Mark would put themselves firmly in #1 above.  Would you also agree there really is no room for the "this was mostly misunderstanding argument" somewhere between #1 and #2?  I don't see any room there myself just as a logical proposition but I'm open to being shown I'm wrong about that.  The point of all this is that in a few weeks, when the ECC BOT comes back with a decision, it would seem to need to be in complete alignment with either 1 or 2 above. There can be no "split the difference", "mushy middle", etc.  Does anyone disagree with that?

[AgathaL'Orange]

See and I’ve always thought it was possible to have a mushy middle.  I’ve always thoight it was  possible that intentions were good but that due to the lack of clear guidelines for leaders and counseling protocols in GCx, especially in those days, that it’s possible for someone to do some things that were not okay or downright wrong but not realize they were not okay.  

This is why I’ve tended to be more against GCx than MD.  It’s not loving or good leadership to put someone in a role for which they have no training or proper mentorship.  And when things were coming to light, again, GCx should have handled it, not only out of love for attenders but out of love for their pastors and leaders.  Glossing over it because “we know his heart” is unloving to everyone.

And further I believe the highly male dominated environment led to “men as rescuers” and “women as supportive and needy creatures” more so than in other environments.  This is clearly seen in the kinds of questioning done and even in the sermons from that era.  I truly think MD and others here even in this board love their roles as rescuers of females hurt by sex in some way.  The idea that others elsewhere shame but we accept your dark past, is actually reinforcing the shame IMO.  And the shame idea seems largely focused on women’s sexuality.

So I believe there’s room for a mushy middle in intent, but I think there’s not a room for mushy middle on impact.

And I believe the ultimate fault here lies with GCx— its structure of low accountability for pastors, its emphasis in silencing critics, its attempt to reinvent the wheel of church without seeing that those in direct contact with members are properly trained and vetted, its lack of female leadership even for counseling roles or oversight into pastoral care, and finally its willful stubbornness and pride in not changing ever.  


Now there’s a bit of a mess, and despite the outcome of their investigation, I think it’s going to be really hard to fix this without radically restructuring things.  You’d never dream of having a Christian counselor who is completely untrained and yet GCx does this all the time.  Were there mandatory reporter trainings?  Clinical therapy hours?  No! Because they fall under the “pastor” category.  Like other churches, right?  Not so fast!  Other churches typically have some pastoral training, including pastoral care and at least a class in counseling, but have they done pastoral training?  No.  Pretty much every facet of training for direct care with people is not attended to.

So here we are.  

[DarthVader]

You always write well Agatha   I think it would be possible to have a mushy middle IF MD wasn't vehemently denying everything.  Again, I'm not presuming truth one way or the other, but I just don't see the logic of the argument "I'm saying none of this ever happened but if it did, my intentions were good, etc.".  I just don't think you can both deny and mitigate, you have to chose one (ideally based on truth) but once you chose "deny everything" I think you have to stand by that and any consequences that result from that position, come what may.

[AgathaL'Orange]

Thank you, and I definitely see your point! 

[freisetzen]

I see it the same way Vader does. Because of the denials of anything happening and the complete difference of opinion of the alleged victims, there's no room for a middle ground. It's either or.

I was surprised when the reporter last night said that the results of the investigation ECC is doing will be made public, but not the full report. Further, the reporter said that the investigation is "expected" to end in late May. Given that, I'd expect to hear ECC report in early June as they try and figure out what they're going to do with this mess.

[DarthVader]

Thank you, and I definitely see your point! 

BTW, I do agree with your points around GCx culture.  I went through Fit-to-Be tied in 2006.  About two years ago, I read The Meaning of Marriage, by Tim Keller (I'm a bit of a TK fanboy) - The contrast was pretty striking although both would say they are "Complementarian"..The GCX material was far too prescriptive in gender roles whereas Tim's book was much more about principals, how the Trinity (ideally) expresses itself in marriage, while the GCx material got really specific (e.g., the man should be the one handing the budget)..

[Rebel in a Good Way]

DarthVader, I personally think your paradigm is correct.  

However, I guess Mark could say "oh, after seeing the news story it jarred things from my memory that I had forgotten about because they were so unsubstantial at the time, they weren't worth remembering.  But yes, now that I've had a visual reminder I do remember going to the woods, because I love being outside and nature is so good for the soul.  Why not get out of the office and have a change of pace?"  Or "On really nice days, the women would suggest being outside because winter is so long here.  Nature is God's creation--who can blame them?  So yes, I did meet outside and thought a park was an appropriately public place.  But I never discussed graphic sexual details."

Mark also never made the very specific denials that Jeromy did.  Or at least, other than a general denial, we have not heard from Mark saying "I never counseled a woman alone, our basement had no fireplace, etc."  Those statements were ALL from Jeromy and/or Mark's other family members.  So I think Mark could backtrack to get to the "mushy middle."  He could say his denial was of any sexually inappropriate behavior, but that counseling in a park or giving a church member a hug are not inappropriate and he did not deny those because they were not abusive.

I think he could still deny the worst of things and "repent" for things that were "misunderstandings" or "I'm sorry you took it that way."  

Your 1. and 2. scenario are rational, but I have been reading about church abuse for quite a long time, and it is amazing how people will defend and deny.  You are approaching this with logic, which doesn't always rule the day. Human nature.  

 

[GodisFaithful]

DV, I believe it is Victim A that was quoted but did not come forward with her name last night on Fox 9.

I do not believe there is middle ground for MD. And here is why. MD would have to be justifying that it is ok to meet alone with a woman multiple times in the basement of Coffman Union (Victim C), initiating times alone on a regular basis (Victim C) and at least once at a park (Victim C). He would have to justify many hours late at night on the phone (Victim A) and going to restaurants and sitting in the car alone with a single woman (Victim A) and asking about intimate details of her sex life even into her marriage (Victim A). He would have to justify 20 plus times alone with Scout with sexualized conversations and some physical contact, including times alone at a park. He would have to justify walks in the woods alone with Natalie. And there are more victims who have not come forward. This is not counseling, folks. No pastor in his right mind would call this counseling.

I believe that MD needs, desperately, some professional help. I think he is delusional if he thinks that he was helping these women. He was harming them and using them. And the idea that he should be a pastor at a church that reaches out to single, young women, is dangerous.

Natalie is a credible witness. I know her personally and she does not go around telling lies. She may be picky about what church she goes to and what that church teaches, but we all have that right. She is not a flaky liar and she should not be painted as such. I remember her as one of MD's favorite single girls, but I did not realize she was one of the victims. I believe that I know who the other two victims are who have come forward with their story and they are credible.

GCx is also culpable, for all the  reasons that Agatha stated. But the guys at the top may be trying to stay as far away from this as they possibly can instead of learning from it and changing anything. The other leaders at Evergreen should be held responsible if there have been cover ups in the past, and if they are not willing to see what went wrong here and do something about it, including reaching out to those who were harmed and hearing their stories. The church, big C, was never ever meant to be about men in power covering up mistreatment of the little guy. Jesus treated women with profound respect and honor.

[DarthVader]

Natalie is a credible witness. I know her personally and she does not go around telling lies. She may be picky about what church she goes to and what that church teaches, but we all have that right. She is not a flaky liar and she should not be painted as such. I remember her as one of MD's favorite single girls, but I did not realize she was one of the victims. I believe that I know who the other two victims are who have come forward with their story and they are credible.

One implication of the "deny everything" path is that it can ONLY mean ALL the other "victims" are lying or delusional. It didn't take long for Natalie to start taking fire on this forum.  Every day, the wisdom of Victim A and C in remaining anonymous is made clear.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Darth, I'm curious as to just what you'd say Natalie is a victim of. Even by her own standards of abuse (which if you read her blog you know she has a very liberal definition) she wouldn't call it sexual abuse. And when asked if at the time she thought is was abuse she flat out said, "no."

So I'm left with Suzanne's account and two anonymous "victims." I'm sad that Fox 9 wouldn't have required more than that before they ran this story, especially knowing an investigation is currently taking place and will soon be concluded.

[G_Prince]

Darth, I'm curious as to just what you'd say Natalie is a victim of. Even by her own standards of abuse (which if you read her blog you know she has a very liberal definition) she wouldn't call it sexual abuse. And when asked if at the time she thought is was abuse she flat out said, "no."

So I'm left with Suzanne's account and two anonymous "victims." I'm sad that Fox 9 wouldn't have required more than that before they ran this story, especially knowing an investigation is currently taking place and will soon concluded.

Actually, she said it was "spiritual abuse with sexual undertones." Just to clarify.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Actually, she said it was "spiritual abuse with sexual undertones." Just to clarify.

Yes, fair enough. I've never heard of someone's life and reputation being destroyed for some vague perceived "sexual undertones" from 25 years ago.

[G_Prince]

So if your pastor asked you what you sounded like when you had an orgasm, you'd be okay with it?

[DarthVader]

Darth, I'm curious as to just what you'd say Natalie is a victim of. Even by her own standards of abuse (which if you read her blog you know she has a very liberal definition) she wouldn't call it sexual abuse. And when asked if at the time she thought is was abuse she flat out said, "no."

So I'm left with Suzanne's account and two anonymous "victims." I'm sad that Fox 9 wouldn't have required more than that before they ran this story, especially knowing an investigation is currently taking place and will soon be concluded.

Hey DLM,

1) I'm not sure why you would hold a victims decision NOT to go on camera against her.  She did apparently speak to Fox9 (so she does exist) and unless you believe Suzanne is lying, Natalie and two others (including the one who talked to Fox9 off camera) fully complied with your church's established process.  I'd think you'd be respectful of they way they've handled this thus far vs. critical.
2) I don't think going for long walks in the woods talking about sex (what Natalie alleged) with a pastor of the opposite sex is appropriate - you are free to feel otherwise.

DLM - unless I'm wrong though, if you believe Mark is being truthful, none of this happened correct? These 4 women are all lying, not misunderstood.  Mark's position is he never spent any significant alone time with these women -do you believe him?  If so, it really doesn't matter what Natalie, Suzanne or the others said, Mark's response and I'm assuming yours, is "all lies" not misunderstandings.  Is this correct?

[Digital Lynch Mob]

You didn't answer my question Darth.

And I am hopeful that the full investigation will shed light on some of these questions. I believe context is everything and we don't have it. I can see how conversations with a Pastor about areas of struggle would be quite appropriate. I can also see where it would not be. But just like that video of Mark preaching about renewed virginity in the Fox 9 story was taken out of context to make him look bad, so could these conversations.

Interesting that you called it my church when all along you've indicated that it was your church too.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

So if your pastor asked you what you sounded like when you had an orgasm, you'd be okay with it?

No of course not. But Natalie, whom I was asking about, made no such claim.

[DarthVader]

Sorry - I thought I did answer your question - I didn't mean to be evasive, but call me out if you still think I am after this post:

1) My understanding is Natalie says she and Mark spent significant alone time discussing sexual issues.  The ECC pastors at my location, both good men, good friends, would never counsel a woman in the circumstances described by Natalie. If Mark did so, he was far outside of acceptable conduct of an ECC pastor, in my opinion. Does that clarify?

2) Mark isn't saying these conversations were taken out of context. Unless Jeromy is mistaken about his dad's position, his position is these conversations never happened and Mark did not spend this alone time with these women having these conversations.  If you believe these conversations did happen, then I'd think you'd also have to believe Mark & Jeromy are not being completely honest, which seems problematic.

3) I did call it your church - I attend an ECC location (not ECC) and was assuming you did attend either ECC or the Rock.  There was probably also some sub-conscious acknowledgment that depending on how this ends up, it may not be "my" church much longer.

[Janet Easson Martin]

"and finally its willful stubbornness and pride in not changing ever."


Even though I agree with you Agatha (above) that many GCX churches seem to have never REALLY changed their toxic faith practices; I will have to say they are SUPERB at changing...their name.  Whenever reports seem to make their way out beyond the confines of well secured walls, they dash to repaint the fortress in hopes that others won't recognize it by it's new color or NEW NAME.  I'd guess that will be changing for this church in less than two months, if that long.  Given GCX's history they are already picking out the paint color for their new sign.  

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Natalie said that Mark told her how much he needed sex. 

The victim who chose not to appear on camera said that she shared private and intimate details of her sex life with Mark, including things about her honeymoon, and felt manipulated in to doing so.  If she had "sought out" counsel for sexual problems, she would not feel manipulated.  Also, if she had "sought out" help for that area, why would Mark counsel her alone in that and not meet with her and her husband or have her talk with another woman? 

"Talking with a pastor about areas of struggle would be quite appropriate."  Let's not normalize conversations about positions, sounds, details, graphic info, ANYthing about the pastor's sexual needs, as appropriate or acceptable.  This is outside the realm of pastoral care and particularly not appropriate if initiated by the pastor in one-on-one conversations.  When it gets to details and sex positions, that level of counsel should be referred to a sex therapist. I just want to reiterate that a pastor should not discuss his own sexual needs or preferences with a female parishioner.  He should not ask for details, personal, private, or graphic information from a woman (or youth or anyone he might be attracted to).  Please do not conflate these things with appropriate pastoral care.

You didn't answer my question Darth.

And I am hopeful that the full investigation will shed light on some of these questions. I believe context is everything and we don't have it. I can see how conversations with a Pastor about areas of struggle would be quite appropriate. I can also see where it would not be. But just like that video of Mark preaching about renewed virginity in the Fox 9 story was taken out of context to make him look bad, so could these conversations.

Interesting that you called it my church when all along you've indicated that it was your church too.

So if your pastor asked you what you sounded like when you had an orgasm, you'd be okay with it?

No of course not. But Natalie, whom I was asking about, made no such claim.

[Shamednomore]

Rebel in a Good Way.  What you said is absolutely spot on.  There is nothing normal or appropriate about it. 

Natalie said that Mark told her how much he needed sex. 

The victim who chose not to appear on camera said that she shared private and intimate details of her sex life with Mark, including things about her honeymoon, and felt manipulated in to doing so.  If she had "sought out" counsel for sexual problems, she would not feel manipulated.  Also, if she had "sought out" help for that area, why would Mark counsel her alone in that and not meet with her and her husband or have her talk with another woman? 

"Talking with a pastor about areas of struggle would be quite appropriate."  Let's not normalize conversations about positions, sounds, details, graphic info, ANYthing about the pastor's sexual needs, as appropriate or acceptable.  This is outside the realm of pastoral care and particularly not appropriate if initiated by the pastor in one-on-one conversations.  When it gets to details and sex positions, that level of counsel should be referred to a sex therapist. I just want to reiterate that a pastor should not discuss his own sexual needs or preferences with a female parishioner.  He should not ask for details, personal, private, or graphic information from a woman (or youth or anyone he might be attracted to).  Please do not conflate these things with appropriate pastoral care.

You didn't answer my question Darth.

And I am hopeful that the full investigation will shed light on some of these questions. I believe context is everything and we don't have it. I can see how conversations with a Pastor about areas of struggle would be quite appropriate. I can also see where it would not be. But just like that video of Mark preaching about renewed virginity in the Fox 9 story was taken out of context to make him look bad, so could these conversations.

Interesting that you called it my church when all along you've indicated that it was your church too.

So if your pastor asked you what you sounded like when you had an orgasm, you'd be okay with it?

No of course not. But Natalie, whom I was asking about, made no such claim.