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 28, 2024, 11:07:17 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Questions for blahblahblah  (Read 4233 times)
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« on: June 05, 2019, 06:59:19 am »

Last week, someone registered on the forum as “blahblahblah” and contacted me via private messaging. They apparently wanted me to summarize their points and post their thoughts because they did not wand to “engage” on the forum.

After a bit of back and forth, they ended their last message by saying I need not respond because they were going to delete their account. It appears as if that has been done. So, I am writing in the hopes that “blahblahblah” (Arrested Development fan, perhaps?)  will see this and help bring clarity to their last message.

First off, we had discussed the severance offer made to the van Dykes and I mentioned that Suzanne was never an employee of ECC or GCM. I mentioned how odd it was for someone who was never an employee of a company to receive a severance package because “severance packages” are paid to employees.

In response to this, blahblahblah said that other pastors who had been given a severance from ECC also had their wives sign a non-disparaging clause and that one pastor was asked to have his adult children sign.

My questions for blahblahblah are: How many “other pastors” have been given severance packages from ECC? Were the members of the congregation who funded these severance packages aware of them? Who authorized this outlay of cash? The pastors? The BoT? Why would a non-employee wife be asked to sign anything related to her husband’s employment? Why would adult children be asked to sign? The bigger question is why would a church try to control the speech of former employees and their families?

Regarding the discussion of the John Meyer investigation, I pointed out that JM drew his conclusions without having any contact with any of the women making the accusations. At first, blah stated that JM (and MD) did not know who these women were. That is blatantly false since at least three names were publicly available. Suzanne. Natalie. Loey. All these women could have been contacted via social media or this forum or by asking a few people for contact information.

After I pointed this out, blah said that the reason JM did not contact Suzanne was because he did not know her character and even if he met with her, he could not believe her because he did not know her or her life so he could not believe anything she said. If that is how it works, why should I believe you, blah? Smiley  I don’t know you. Or, your character.

Finally, blah, you are troubled that Suzanne is not gloating on social media. My response: Why would any person gloat about this? It is a tragedy on so many levels.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2019, 07:01:22 am by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1062



« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2019, 07:30:33 am »

The idea of non-disclosure agreements for non-employees, or even for employees if signed after their term of employment, sounds fishy on several different levels. (Aren't most employment-related NDAs signed beforehand, and only to protect legitimate trade secrets?) Anyone who signed one of these should check with an attorney to see if it's legally binding.

Besides, there are whistleblower protections that would trump an NDA in court, not to mention that no NDA can be legally used to cover up a felony.

EDIT: I just realized that you said non-disparagement, not non-disclosure. Sorry for the misunderstanding. However, I still question whether or nor these agreements would be legally binding on a spouse or child. The whistleblower and felony exceptions would certainly still apply.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2019, 07:35:39 am by Huldah » Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #2 on: June 06, 2019, 03:32:47 pm »

Thinking about the severance package offer, in his communication, blah referred to other pastors who had been offered severance packages which got me to thinking and rereading the Meyer letter.

For those of you who have seen it, on page 10, complaint number 3 was that no severance had been given to Mark unless he would sign a nondisclosure agreement. How ironic!

The manner in which this grievance was presented is most curious. Meyer refers to "past situations" (plural) where significant amounts of money had been given to "departing leaders" (plural and the term used is leaders not pastors) who were "highly critical of ECC" with no strings attached.

I'm throwing these questions out for everyone, not just blah.

Does anyone know of severance packages given to other pastors?

Does anyone know of severance packages given to departing leaders (who were not elders/pastors) who were highly critical of ECC?

Does anyone know of so called "severance packages" that were given to people in the congregation who were not employed by ECC?

Does anyone know of any nondisclosure agreements that were signed in conjunction with monetary payments?

Personally, I would like to know if anyone knows of payments made to pastors or leaders prior to August of 2005 because that would mean that our tithe money went to severance package payments without our knowledge.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2019, 08:41:02 pm by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #3 on: September 16, 2019, 09:21:38 am »

I was killing some time this weekend and revisited the Meyer letter (I received this letter from two sources a few months back) as well as a private communication I received from "blahblahblah".

Both Meyer and Blah refer to severance packages offered by ECC.

Meyer refers to "past situations" where "significant amounts" of $$ were given with no strings attached to "leaders" who were critical of ECC.

As a person who tithed to this organization for 10 years, I would like to know what he is referring to or whether he was just making this up. If significant amounts of money were paid out to departing leaders, I would like to know who these leaders were and whether or not the congregation who would have been funding these pay outs was made aware of them. I would also like to know if these "significant" payouts happened while we were attending.

Blah's private communication (Blah has since deleted his/her account) stated that other pastors (Meyer used the word leaders instead of pastors) leaving ECC who received "severance" deals had to have their wives sign non-disparaging clauses and even went on to state that one pastor had to have his children sign!

If wives and children are signing documents, these are NOT "standard" non-disparaging clauses. These are very odd agreements. Especially for churches to be demanding.

My question remains.

Does anyone know who these ECC "leaders" and/or "pastors" are who received these "significant" sums of money? If you are not comfortable posting this info publicly, you may private message me.

Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2019, 07:50:14 am »

A follow up question that remains in my mind relating to Blah's private message is:

If large sums of money were being paid to pastors/leaders who left, and some of them involved "non-disclosure" agreements signed by wives, does this mean that there is the potential that women who may have had concerns about leadership behavior were not free to tell Joan their stories out of fear of being forced to pay back the "severance" money?

Pause and reflect on a NON-EMPLOYEE getting a "severance" package.

There are so many questions:

Were payments made to anyone? If so, how many, when, why, and to whom?
Were non-disclosure agreements signed?
If so, did any of these agreements and accompanying payments have to do with inappropriate behavior on the part of an ECC leader?
Were the congregants aware of these payments?
Why would wives who were not employees of ECC have to sign these agreements?
Were any of these payments made to keep women from telling their stories?

Again, maybe my source who mentioned non-disclosures was uninformed.

Meyer says payments were made, but no non-disclosure agreements were signed.
Blah says payments were made and non-disclosure agreements were signed.
What both agree on is that payments were made.

This is astonishing.




Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2019, 10:02:36 am »

The idea of non-disclosure agreements for non-employees, or even for employees if signed after their term of employment, sounds fishy on several different levels. (Aren't most employment-related NDAs signed beforehand, and only to protect legitimate trade secrets?) Anyone who signed one of these should check with an attorney to see if it's legally binding.

Besides, there are whistleblower protections that would trump an NDA in court, not to mention that no NDA can be legally used to cover up a felony.

EDIT: I just realized that you said non-disparagement, not non-disclosure. Sorry for the misunderstanding. However, I still question whether or nor these agreements would be legally binding on a spouse or child. The whistleblower and felony exceptions would certainly still apply.


Somehow I missed your post. The phrase Blah used was “non-disparaging clause”.

How would anyone define “disparaging “ as it related to a church?

Again, we don’t know if this type of agreement was made or offered.

Addendum:  Just the fact that a church would offer money in exchange for silence (ie. not saying anything "disparaging") should be a huge red flag on so many levels.

Certainly questioning doctrine is a legit reason to leave a church. Would a non-disparaging clause forbid someone from pointing out bad theology?

Immoral behavior on the part of leaders would be another reason to leave a church. Would a non-disparaging clause forbid someone from pointing out sin in accordance with the Matthew 18 admonishment to tell the church should the first two steps fail to produce repentance (ie. confessing and discontinuing sin).

A church that pays money to protect itself from criticism appears to have something to hide.

Huldah, I am no attorney, but I don't think tax laws allow non profits to offer payouts of cash in exchange for silence from employees or members of the congregation.

It's all so bizarre.

I do know for a fact that we were attending ECC when the van Dycks were offered cash. Part of this payment  ($15,000) came with no strings attached and part (the part that wasn't paid) came with demands. At the time, members of the congregation were NOT made aware of these offers that would come out of donated funds. I learned that payments were made in 2018 which was 13 years after we left and 15 or so years after the payment was made.

Then, when others have suggested more payouts were made or offered, it makes one wonder what was happening behind the scenes.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2019, 11:32:43 am by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2022, 09:51:30 am »

While sorting papers this week I came upon a private communication from "Blah..." that I had printed out. I was trying to remember what his thing was so just did a search and found this thread. I had forgotten about it. I never got the question answered about large payouts of money given to other pastors who left. So, I'm throwing this out in case anyone has that information.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Janet Easson Martin
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1898



« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2022, 01:46:17 pm »

Linda, I’m glad you are following up to find answers to this very concerning question of large payouts to pastors who left.

It seemed to come up again after the EXPOSURE of extremely inappropriate and unwanted sexual “counseling” and actions by MD toward at least nine young women members who testified to such came forward. I remember a GCx leader saying or implying on here that if their GCx church leadership did not agree with the “innocence” of MD, GCx National Board  members threatened to no longer support these churches and would cut off their financial aid. It seemed there may have been mention of “payouts” to leaders who left, perhaps to buy their silence.

I have been disturbed by leaders that stood opposed to GCx’s abusive teaching and practices, and later “reconciled.” GCx and its abusive leadership did NOT repent, or publicly repudiate shameful actions of the founder and participating leaders. Even though they may think they have “covered” their VERY damaging spiritual abuse, it will be exposed -in their lifetime or after; here or at the First Judgement in Heaven. Perhaps Ravi Zacharias thought he, too, was successful at hiding his abuse.

A good name [earned by honorable behavior, godly wisdom, moral courage,
and personal integrity] is more desirable than great riches;
And favor is better than silver and gold.

Proverbs 22:1



« Last Edit: April 10, 2022, 10:04:41 am by Janet Easson Martin » Logged

For grace is given not because we have done good works, but in order that we may be able to do them.        - Saint Augustine
Janet Easson Martin
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1898



« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2022, 07:31:17 am »


Taking a Bribe


God says we are the light in the midst of a dark world. We are given power by the Spirit to be holy like He is. We are not to be given to corruption. Just because a “worldly” practice is common doesn’t make it right. We are not of this world. Some of these so called NDA’s can be a “nice” cover for a bribe.

Vocabulary.com defines a bribe as “payment made to a person in a position of trust to corrupt his judgment.” Bribes corruptly persuade one to keep silent where he should speak up or twist the truth in order to protect someone or something that is wrong. This most often suppresses or silences the victims cry. Here are some of a good number of biblical truths on taking a bribe:


You must not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the clear-sighted
and corrupts the words of the righteous
.
(Exodus 23:8 CSB)


Take no bribes, for a bribe makes you ignore something that you clearly see.
A bribe makes even a righteous person twist the truth.
(Exodus 23:8 NLT)

But select from all the people some capable, honest men who fear God and hate bribes.
Appoint them as leaders over groups of one thousand, one hundred, fifty, and ten.
 (Exodus 18:21 NLT)




Verses From Link:
https://www.biblecafe.org/bible-verses-about-bribes/



« Last Edit: April 09, 2022, 07:42:13 am by Janet Easson Martin » Logged

For grace is given not because we have done good works, but in order that we may be able to do them.        - Saint Augustine
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520



« Reply #9 on: April 12, 2022, 10:38:41 am »

I'm having a hard time getting past the line:

"In past situations, significant amounts have been given with no strings attached even to departing leaders highly critical of Evergreen." The highlighted words are plural!

I realize that the sentence was written as a criticism of MD not receiving severance with no strings attached, but apparently without thinking it through, the writer tells us that:

1. On more than one occasion large (significant) amounts of money were paid out to individuals (plural!).

2. Some of these individuals were departing leaders (plural).

3. Some of these leaders were highly critical of Evergreen.

So wait a minute. What this says it that on more than one occasion (situations is the word used), large sums of money ("significant amounts") were paid to multiple people including some leaders who had a problem ("were highly critical of") with ECC. Whoa!

What I would like to say to the individuals who received this money is that my assumption is that you were in a difficult situation, under great duress, and had to protect your family. I DO NOT fault you for taking the money. I am sorry for the situation that caused this trauma in your life. I DO fault any church leaders who paid out large sums of donated funds to individuals.

As a person who tithed to ECC for 10 years, I would like to know if any "significant" amounts of money were paid out during the time I was there to leaders or members who had issues with the church. I am astonished and angry and those who offered payments should be deeply ashamed.

« Last Edit: April 12, 2022, 02:43:15 pm by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Janet Easson Martin
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1898



« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2022, 05:57:29 pm »


I'm having a hard time getting past the line:

"In past situations, significant amounts have been given with no strings attached even to departing leaders highly critical of Evergreen." The highlighted words are plural!

... I DO fault any church leaders who paid out large sums of donated funds to individuals.

... I am astonished and angry and those who offered payments should be deeply ashamed.



Very much agree, Linda!

Just how many of these “payouts” have been made to cover up spiritual abuse?!!

And if there are any funds left in these churches, they should most definitely go to those who were damaged by GCx. Perhaps a group like GRACE, Godly Response To Abuse in the Church Environment, could be paid to contract some great christian psychologists and therapists trained and experienced in the area of spiritual abuse to provide group and individual counseling for former GCx members.



Logged

For grace is given not because we have done good works, but in order that we may be able to do them.        - Saint Augustine
Janet Easson Martin
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1898



« Reply #11 on: April 16, 2022, 09:26:53 pm »


I remember a GCx leader saying or implying on here that if their GCx church leadership did not agree with the “innocence” of MD, GCx National Board  members threatened to no longer support these churches and would cut off their financial aid.



Here is the crucial testimony I was referring to above. It can be found in the General Discussion Section under the Topic, “The darker side of Hopler and Whitney.”


What is happening right now is absolute corruption at the risk of losing a fellow friend.

Right now it is easy for Hopler/Whitney to leverage financial support to churches in exchange for support of Darling. They are currently restructuring the whole organization so it's either put up and shut up, or have your support network destroyed. ... They are absolutely supporting Darling and they are asking the pastors of the churches under their organization for support or they cut off funding. Hopler/Whitney can't publicly support Darling because that would obviously look bad for them given the amount of press the Darling story generated.

GCM/GCC typically provides financial support for churches under their wing, especially if the church has less than 300 members. Rent/minimal salaries etc...

I just spoke with the pastor of a church that was apart of GCM until 3 weeks ago. John Hopler and Rick Whitney asked him to support them and get behind Mark Darling. The pastor and his co pastor decided with the facts presented to them that they couldn't stand behind Mark Darling so Hopler and Whitney pulled the funding for this church and this church is no longer apart of GCM and shut their doors last week for good. ... The church I am speaking about has been involved with GCM for almost 30 years. I am honestly not too sure on the GCM/GCC stuff, we only knew it to be affiliated with GCM.

I didn't necessarily get a sense of how Hopler and Whitney wanted this pastor to get behind them. This pastor had been close friends with both those men and Darling for 30 years at least. They had just asked for him to "stand with them" and it's just something he couldn't do. Financially, this certain church was already hurting and this was the nail in the coffin.

-ReaperofGCM, 2019



I wonder if the National Association of Evangelicals has been informed of this because John Hopler is still listed as one of their board members (“appearing” with Reliant Mission.) I also wonder if The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability is aware of this. Surely, they don’t support financial “bribing” on matters of a leader’s integrity. The links to these organizations and the pertinent pages are below.

https://www.nae.org/leadership/
https://www.ecfa.org/MemberProfile.aspx?ID=12040



« Last Edit: April 17, 2022, 11:15:56 am by Janet Easson Martin » Logged

For grace is given not because we have done good works, but in order that we may be able to do them.        - Saint Augustine
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


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