Perspective for the regulars here on this forum

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.

[Phoenix]

I'd say that a majority (85-95%) of the regular attenders at the Evergreen-Bloomington location only know Mark as the guy who pastors the Rock and speaks in Bloomington once a summer, that is it.  So many of them have little connection with him.  Their church is not the cult and mind-controlling church that many here think it may still be.

The rest of us (long-time attenders) are struggling, struggling each of us in different ways.  It is tearing people apart on the inside and likely straining or ending relationships.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Phoenix, is Mark Bowen at Evergreen Bloomington?  I think part of the issue is that Mark Bowen and other leadership at Bloomington was part of the original (alleged) problem (which I believe, just to clarify) in which they failed to reign in someone who probably should have been reigned in.  This is a great chance for them to make public statements against abuse in the church whether or not they speak to the situation with Mark Darling.  Instead they issued an "unintentionally misleading" tweet denying everything, which is the typical institutional protectionism most churches do.  I think how Evergreen leadership handles this is very important, regardless of how the congregants feel about Mark Darling. 

I don't doubt that people are struggling.  Abuse in the church does rip people apart. 

[Phoenix]

Bowen has been in Lakeville since that started and he'd be known only in the same way as mentioned about MD.  I think he may even be semi-retired.

I don't doubt that people are struggling.  Abuse in the church does rip people apart. 

As can allegations IF proven to be false in the end.  (Not stating I believe this but asking you to acknowledge both are true.)

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Mark Bowen was involved with the conflict between the van Dkyes and Mark Darling. However, it is soooooooooooo important to emphasize that there were no accusations of sexual abuse or sexual impropriety of any kind. The only issues brought forth were those in the vague realm of "spiritual abuse." There was no cover up of sexual abuse because there were no charges of sexual abuse brought forth...until this January on social media.

[Linda]

The only issues brought forth were those in the vague realm of "spiritual abuse." There was no cover up of sexual abuse because there were no charges of sexual abuse brought forth

And how do you know this?

#5,493

[DarthVader]

Hey Digital Lynch Mob:  I've also heard some of the insider ECC perspective on the "coverup" piece of this story which are 1) Spiritual Abuse, not sexual abuse was mentioned at the meeting with Darlings, van Dycks, therapist, Mark Bowen.  2) The "$60K offer for silence" was part of a broader package involving the van Dyck's participating in some healing process after Berlin - it did include a non disparagement clause but that is "standard".

One topic I haven't heard any of the ECC "spin" on related to the meeting with the Darlings, van Dycks, etc. was the requirement (according to Suzanne) that Mark Darling attend counseling and step down for awhile, which I find curious.

Jeromy Darling apparently spoke to the therapist, but didn't address this specific topic (understandably) at all in his posts on Suzanne's website, I haven't seen it addressed by you or any of "ECC loyal" faction on the various forums...So just a question for you, as like many, I'm trying to come to my own point of view on the truth here to make informed decisions about whether or not I continue to attend an ECC location - I have since 2003, but I am on the fence as the way this his been handled has not been inspiring thus far.

You know enough to know that sexual abuse was not discussed at this meeting, but what do you know about the requirement coming out of the meeting that Mark D. was to step down for a time and attend counseling? If you don't know anything, do you find it curious that someone shared with you that sexual abuse was not discussed but were silent on the alleged requirement that Mark D. attend counseling?  That would seem to be cherry picking from facts - can you go back to your source and ask about the counseling requirement?.  If it was shared with you that Mark D. stepping down for a time and attending counseling was or was not agreed to at the meeting could you share that fact with us? 

If there is any thing snarky in my tone it is not intended - just seems like information about the meeting is coming out selectively.   Thanks!

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Fair questions Darth...so forgive me, but I'm going to weasel out on my answer. Not because I want to mislead, but simply because I don't want to get too far over my skis. I believe some of the details are better communicated by the church, and they will be, but all pastors and church officials really are waiting for the investigation to be completed before they comment.

I'd just say this, I don't think anyone would say they hit a home run on how this has been handled, back 18 years ago or now. The church is not full of people well versed in crisis management - thankfully! Second point, there are multiple reasons why someone would see a counselor - most would not lead us to assume they've done something pernicious or illegal.

Sorry if that's a lame answer.

[DarthVader]

Fair questions Darth...so forgive me, but I'm going to weasel out on my answer. Not because I want to mislead, but simply because I don't want to get too far over my skis. I believe some of the details are better communicated by the church, and they will be, but all pastors and church officials really are waiting for the investigation to be completed before they comment.

I'd just say this, I don't think anyone would say they hit a home run on how this has been handled, back 18 years ago or now. The church is not full of people well versed in crisis management - thankfully! Second point, there are multiple reasons why someone would see a counselor - most would not lead us to assume they've done something pernicious or illegal.

Sorry if that's a lame answer.

Hey DLM - thanks for your answer. I appreciate the respectful and thoughtful tone and will try and keep mine the same, but call me on it if it  I don't.  I understand your answer, but here are some issues with it... You've shared "inside baseball" where it seems to suit your "side" of this mess.  - 1) Suzanne didn't raise issues of sexual misconduct at this meeting and 2) The 60K "offer" was not as framed as Suzanne frame it, a payoff...But on a topic which might not make ECC looks as good, you've begged off.  For those seeing conspiracy everywhere (I don't put myself in that category) but also for those of us just trying to assess the truth, it doesn't look good, it looks like narrative control vs. full disclosure. 

Your point on counseling is well taken - I see a counselor myself, but to your point there are many possible reasons - context is everything.  I think the counseling is relevant here for a couple of reasons

1) because (if Suzanne is correct on this point - that Mark agreed to seek counseling) it wasn't an instance of Mark humbly saying/self realizing "I'm struggling with something, I should get help" which we'd all agree is a highly positive, and the opposite of evil or pernicious..Rather, as context is everything, it was that all parties in that meeting (Mark, Kathy, Suzanne, John, Mark B, therapist) agreed there had been some problems with Mark's interactions with the van Dycks in some respect (I'll concede the point and say not sexual misconduct) and Mark should and agrees to seek counseling and step down for time to address it.  If a pastor's interactions with others are problematic enough to require counseling as an action step, "forced" on him (e.g, he agreed to it but it wasn't his idea), that seems like something the broader congregation should have known - e.g., "Mark knows needs to work on X and will be stepping down for a time to address it - we don't hide our imperfections here". 

2) In the ECC "tweet" it was clearly, clearly stated "no further action steps were required" - I cannot see any framing or spin that would not define "Mark agrees to attend counseling following this meeting" as an "action step".  The apology for that ECC tweet (never delivered by ECC to the person it most wronged) said the tweet was misleading.  Misleading is "rounding up from 17 to 20 years (done in the ECC tweet) or calling the Berlin plant money a gift (done in the ECC tweet).  I would call "no further actions steps were required" if in fact it was agreed that Mark would seek counseling further than misleading, I would call it untrue. Would you agree, if Mark did agree to attend counseling after that meeting, the ECC tweet statement "no further action steps were required" is untrue, not misleading? Thoughts? Thanks again for being thoughtful and respectful. 

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Phoenix, yes false accusations would be equally devastating.  I would be willing to make any amends necessary if I was involved in supporting the false destruction of someone.  Because I am involved in victim advocacy work, I know how false accusations would destroy an individual family, but also make it that much more difficult for any other abuse victim ever seeking justice.  I take this very seriously!  So I weigh my giving of support very carefully.

Hi Darth Vader, thanks for your open mind on this forum.  I just want to clarify, are you saying 1. the idea that sexual abuse was never addressed in the meeting or the letter is the operating belief at ECC, or just what Jeromy Darling put forth in his The Reckoning?  I know he based this on one letter (from John) and a conversation with a therapist.  I've wondered if anyone has questioned if there was more than one letter--I have no idea but Jeromy claims he has seen THE letter.  If Suzanne said she wrote a letter, wouldn't it be more convincing if Jeromy had seen a letter written by Suzanne?  And they have not offered details about the therapist, has anyone asked why a therapist would violate confidentiality, and if so, is he a trustworthy witness?  Knowing the high ethics required for confidentiality in a professional field (some biblical counselors may not have this standard, I really don't know what his field was) I find this a little suspect.  Even if HIPPA wasn't in place at the time, we've all had to sign a million of those forms at the doctor's office, so the expectation of confidentiality in any sort of patient/practitioner relationship is quite clear.   

It sounds like you are willing to hold your church to a high standard and I applaud you for that!  There is obviously some grace for situations like this--so that first tweet from ECC was a problem, but they still can handle this well, and I pray that they do. 

[DarthVader]

Phoenix, yes false accusations would be equally devastating.  I would be willing to make any amends necessary if I was involved in supporting the false destruction of someone.  Because I am involved in victim advocacy work, I know how false accusations would destroy an individual family, but also make it that much more difficult for any other abuse victim ever seeking justice.  I take this very seriously!  So I weigh my giving of support very carefully.

Hi Darth Vader, thanks for your open mind on this forum.  I just want to clarify, are you saying 1. the idea that sexual abuse was never addressed in the meeting or the letter is the operating belief at ECC, or just what Jeromy Darling put forth in his The Reckoning?  I know he based this on one letter (from John) and a conversation with a therapist.  I've wondered if anyone has questioned if there was more than one letter--I have no idea but Jeromy claims he has seen THE letter.  If Suzanne said she wrote a letter, wouldn't it be more convincing if Jeromy had seen a letter written by Suzanne?  And they have not offered details about the therapist, has anyone asked why a therapist would violate confidentiality, and if so, is he a trustworthy witness?  Knowing the high ethics required for confidentiality in a professional field (some biblical counselors may not have this standard, I really don't know what his field was) I find this a little suspect.  Even if HIPPA wasn't in place at the time, we've all had to sign a million of those forms at the doctor's office, so the expectation of confidentiality in any sort of patient/practitioner relationship is quite clear.   

It sounds like you are willing to hold your church to a high standard and I applaud you for that!  There is obviously some grace for situations like this--so that first tweet from ECC was a problem, but they still can handle this well, and I pray that they do. 

Thanks Phoenix - To answer you question - I have no inside knowledge or insight on what was/wasn't shared at the meeting, but my point to DLM was more in the spirit of "even it was conceded sexual misconduct wasn't raised" (BTW, I do think this is the operating belief inside ECC based on what DLM has shared).

I find Hedi Anfinson's letter posted on FB discussing counseling for Mark compelling - 1) It's contemporaneous with the events (so far the only contemporaneous document the public has seen) and it supports at least part of Suzanne's narrative, and calls into question the "no further action steps" statement in the ECC tweet in a very direct way 2) I know the Anfinson's - they are trustworthy.  I have the same questions about Jeromy's conversation with the therapist I believe the therapist had a professional obligation to Suzanne as her therapist (my understanding is he was never Mark's therapist) to not discuss any aspect of her situation with any outside party without her signed waiver of confidentiality, so I don't understand how he would have felt ethical having the conversation with anyone but Suzanne, but that is between the therapist and Jeromy.

I too hope ECC starts to handle this well..but I've been hoping that for the last few weeks.  It would be wonderful to see that start, such as ECC initiating a direct conversation with Suzanne and the victims, working to gain agreement on the investigative process, apologizing directly to Suzanne for the tweet, etc.  None of those things have happened yet, but I keep praying they will.  Best regards, DV

[DarthVader]

Sorry - I meant to address previous to "Rebel in a good way"..gets confusing

[Phoenix]

Mark Bowen was involved with the conflict between the van Dkyes and Mark Darling. However, it is soooooooooooo important to emphasize that there were no accusations of sexual abuse or sexual impropriety of any kind. The only issues brought forth were those in the vague realm of "spiritual abuse." There was no cover up of sexual abuse because there were no charges of sexual abuse brought forth...until this January on social media.

Thanks for hijacking my post with something you have put on at least 1 or 2 other posts.