Rock BOT - or "Why is Mark Darling's best friend able to decide he's innocent?

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.

[Greentruth]

GTA, you're so ready to accuse and tear down anyone who isn't part of your ECC social circle. Do you understand that that isn't normal or healthy?

God can use the ungodly to accomplish his will, just as He used Assyria and Babylon to discipline Israel and Judah. If he wants to expose the wolves in a church (any church, not just yours or mine), he can use an atheist reporter to do it. And if He does expose the wolves, we must trust Him that it's for the good of the sheep.

Your on a roll, aren’t you Hulda.  I’m sorry but you really are not coming across at all as someone in a place to judge someone else on merits you step on continually. You assume much, and care little who or what you hurt. Using God in your assumptions of who or what He will use. Just remember what happened to Assyria and Babylon when he brought Israel back.  Who the actual wolves are is yet to be determined, and trust me, God does know our hearts, and He will be the judge of who judged who.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

According to ECC people, being gay is equal to being:

Dishonest
Unethical
Vengeful
Lacking integrity
Greedy
Unable to be used by God for God's purposes

Good to know what you church teaches as "biblical" teachings on this matter.

[Differentstrokes]

Yikes. This whole narrative has reminded me why I'm so thankful to be away from the toxic church. Y'all are psycho

[Rypick]

Wow, the rhetoric to discredit this investigation has ramped up so fast that I'm having trouble keeping up. So, if this point has already been made, I apologize.

In case anyone is unaware, the Rock is not a mega church of 30,000 members. Our membership is more in the range of 200 people. For the most part, everyone knows each other. So, the demand that the Rock’s BOT member be someone who has never met Mark, never spoken with Jeromy, never served alongside Mark's family, is frankly, silly.

Yes, Todd is biased. Everyone is biased. The question is not whether you are biased; the question is whether you are mature enough to recognize your bias, and whether you are strong enough in character not let your bias be the primary factor in your judgements.

This is also the reason why there is a Board of Trustees with multiple people, theoretically, all with strong character. Contrary to the title of this thread, Todd is not the one deciding MD’s fate. The Board of Trustees is. The reason you have a multi-member board, is to help offset the individual members’ biases.

By the way, great smear, Rebel. 

[Rebel in a Good Way]

But apparently smearing gay people is okay with you.

By the way, great smear, Rebel. 

[Huldah]

In case anyone is unaware, the Rock is not a mega church of 30,000 members. Our membership is more in the range of 200 people. For the most part, everyone knows each other. So, the demand that the Rock’s BOT member be someone who has never met Mark, never spoken with Jeromy, never served alongside Mark's family, is frankly, silly.

This is why it's considered good practice for boards to include members who are completely independent of the organization. Evergreen doesn't do this, of course, nor does GCC. (If you want a more in-depth discussion of the issue, you can read the thread I started a few weeks ago on GCC and the ECFA.)

[araignee19]

Wow, the rhetoric to discredit this investigation has ramped up so fast that I'm having trouble keeping up. So, if this point has already been made, I apologize.

In case anyone is unaware, the Rock is not a mega church of 30,000 members. Our membership is more in the range of 200 people. For the most part, everyone knows each other. So, the demand that the Rock’s BOT member be someone who has never met Mark, never spoken with Jeromy, never served alongside Mark's family, is frankly, silly.

Yes, Todd is biased. Everyone is biased. The question is not whether you are biased; the question is whether you are mature enough to recognize your bias, and whether you are strong enough in character not let your bias be the primary factor in your judgements.

This is also the reason why there is a Board of Trustees with multiple people, theoretically, all with strong character. Contrary to the title of this thread, Todd is not the one deciding MD’s fate. The Board of Trustees is. The reason you have a multi-member board, is to help offset the individual members’ biases.

By the way, great smear, Rebel. 

Imagine that... everyone at the church is biased. So wouldn't a truly 3rd party investigation agreed upon by both sides have solved this concern? Seems pretty obvious to me.

[Rypick]

Not everyone at the church... everyone on earth is biased. Looking for someone with zero bias is a fool's errand. They don't exist.

And Rebel responds with a second smear. Keep going, you're on a roll!

[Peace]

The Fox guy is married to a man. Yes, he has a bias toward the church that doesn't support gay marriage. He also has a criminal record.

Yikes. This whole narrative has reminded me why I'm so thankful to be away from the toxic church. Y'all are psycho

According to ECC people, being gay is equal to being:

Dishonest
Unethical
Vengeful
Lacking integrity
Greedy
Unable to be used by God for God's purposes

Good to know what you church teaches as "biblical" teachings on this matter.

This is appalling.

Church ("C"), you are better than this. Goodness, HUMANS, you are better than this.

GCx as a whole, ECC as a whole, this forum as a whole are NOT represented by a handful of posters on either side.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Peace, you are correct.  I should have said that GTA and Isthisreal? have equated being gay with those things.

Yikes. This whole narrative has reminded me why I'm so thankful to be away from the toxic church. Y'all are psycho

According to ECC people, being gay is equal to being:

Dishonest
Unethical
Vengeful
Lacking integrity
Greedy
Unable to be used by God for God's purposes

Good to know what you church teaches as "biblical" teachings on this matter.

This is appalling.

Church ("C"), you are better than this. Goodness, HUMANS, you are better than this.

GCx as a whole, ECC as a whole, this forum as a whole are NOT represented by a handful of posters on either side.

[Huldah]

Not everyone at the church... everyone on earth is biased. Looking for someone with zero bias is a fool's errand. They don't exist.

Maybe everyone is a little biased, but not everyone has an obvious conflict of interests. Ideally, a board should include outsiders who have no conflict of interests.

[Rypick]

I'm not arguing that the current process is perfect, I'm arguing that there is no perfect process. It doesn't matter who is on a board, or who does an investigation, if the results aren't what you expect or want, it is all too easy to undermine them by pointing out biases and possible conflicts of interest.

[ShineTheLight]

I'm not arguing that the current process is perfect, I'm arguing that there is no perfect process. It doesn't matter who is on a board, or who does an investigation, if the results aren't what you expect or want, it is all too easy to undermine them by pointing out biases and possible conflicts of interest.

Wouldn't one simple improvement to the current process be to have Todd step back from a role on this and trust the judgement of the other 6 who at least don't work side by side in ministry every week with Mark's daughter and son-in-law?  Does the fact that he is apparently unwilling to do so mean he is determined to be a voice for Mark in this process?

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Does the fact that he is apparently unwilling to do so mean he is determined to be a voice for Mark in this process?

Nope

[Rebel in a Good Way]

I'm not sure what patterns you are looking for.  When it comes to false reports of rape, there are some patterns

Often times young people
Trying to avoid consequences (for breaking curfew, acquiring an STD, or getting pregnant)--not really for getting revenge
Report within 24 hours (most assaults are reported much later)
Claim it was a stranger or strangers, not someone they know
Don't have clear details about location (often say they were pulled in to a car)
Lack details in general
Reported by another party (i.e. parents contacting the police based on the person's story)
If there are inconsistencies in the story (which is common in legit cases due to trauma), they are blatant and contradictory (like they don't really keep track of the original lie they started with)
Their stories are not those that could make people question if they gave consent, nothing that could be portrayed as "he said/she said."  (contrary to the way that many sexual assaults occur, when someone might have had too much to drink, or might have started fooling around and then the perpetrator refused to stop)

Thanks, this explains why you have attacked me over and over.  

 Others will read this and think, "oh yes, that is probably exactly what will happen, because Rebel said this, and she must know something",

How can you justify your words here?  Just for a second, entertain the thought that the allegations are not true, how will you be justified?  How can you undo the damage done by your very own words?  How can you reconcile this with scripture?   How is this Godly discernment or good judgement? How does this fit in with being in leadership and helping others? 

I can justify my words because I am familiar with PATTERNS.  Over and over, churches react in these ways.  Behavior is telling, and ECC's behavior is part of the pattern that so many other churches have used to protect abusers in their walls.  It's a pattern I have witnessed GCC take with my own eyes. So it's not just baseless speculation, it's being aware (because yes, I have studied this) of the meanings of different actions and behaviors.  It's being aware of what transparent and trustworthy leadership looks like (not just "trust them because I think they have integrity"). It's being aware of Christian ethics.  I assess/evaluate based on actions.

You know, I had entertained the seriousness of what if the allegations are not true and tried to speak as such, also taking care to use words like "alleged," "if" etc.  I agree with you that it would be very serious. At this point, there are just too many women who have come forward, 3 of whom identified themselves for me to consider that as a real possibility, although obviously it's technically a possibility.  The BOT's investigation is not the only and final way to determine truth.  There is nothing in the bible that says a 501c3 entity that has a supervising Board of Trustees gets to determine what actually happened or not.  Truth is truth no matter how it's revealed. 

Also, I DO KNOW SOME THINGS.  I have seen recent communication from John Hopler himself where he tries to intimidate and bully.  It is shudder-worthy.  AND I KNOW SOME OTHER THINGS.  So based on those things I know, I think my actions measure up to scrutiny.

As far as the biblical aspect, Jesus calls us to care for the least of these (Matt 25:31-46).  The least of these in his society were the ones with less power, who weren't treated justly, and who were negatively affected by God's people who failed to live up to their call. Another verse in Matt is 18:6, which says it is better for one to have a millstone around his neck that to cause a little one to stumble.  He had been welcoming children, who at that time were also powerless and vulnerable in society.  Luke 4:18 where Jesus quotes Isaiah about setting the oppressed free.  Much of the OT law is based on justice, protecting the vulnerable and correcting wrong-doing by making restitution.  The Old Testament shows the prophets having to call out his people for their wrongdoing, always with the goal of repentance and returning to him.  Matt 23 speaks directly to leaders who missed the mark and harmed their people.  I know ECC supporters have used those references against the victims' supporters, but that is incorrect.  The terms brood of vipers (which was a super huge insult in the time and would have sounded worse to them than it does to us) was used against leaders in power who neglected justice, mercy, were hypocritical and sought power.  Based on the themes of Scripture, I would rather err on the side of choosing to stand with the victimized and oppressed and risk the off chance that the powerful, who have already demonstrated signs of being abusive, might be innocent.  However, if they are shown innocent, then I would make every effort to make things right.

What patterns are there when someone is falsely accused? 

[Godtrumpsall]

According to ECC people, being gay is equal to being:

Dishonest
Unethical
Vengeful
Lacking integrity
Greedy
Unable to be used by God for God's purposes

Good to know what you church teaches as "biblical" teachings on this matter.

How did you come to this conclusion Rebel?   Tom has a record of the above list (except take out the part about being used by God).  So if we believe this of one man, then we believe that all women and men who are gay also fit into this list    So if our churches do such a terrible and un-biblical job of teaching on this topic, this is why so many in my church that I know of, love compassionately, and care deeply for LGBT people, including myself.   Rebel, you are an intelligent person, I think it would serve us all well if we all posted facts, not this speculative, damning statements that hold no merit. 

[Rypick]

I'm not arguing that the current process is perfect, I'm arguing that there is no perfect process. It doesn't matter who is on a board, or who does an investigation, if the results aren't what you expect or want, it is all too easy to undermine them by pointing out biases and possible conflicts of interest.

Wouldn't one simple improvement to the current process be to have Todd step back from a role on this and trust the judgement of the other 6 who at least don't work side by side in ministry every week with Mark's daughter and son-in-law?  Does the fact that he is apparently unwilling to do so mean he is determined to be a voice for Mark in this process?

Even if Todd is a total MD fanboy, unable to set aside his bias and judge fairly, if you trust the judgement of the other 6, then he is out-voted, 6 to 1. His bias is effectively neutralized. That's the power of the multi-member board.

[ShineTheLight]

and if the vote is 4-3 with him as the deciding vote, how good should we all feel about that outcome?

[Godtrumpsall]

Peace, you are correct.  I should have said that GTA and Isthisreal? have equated being gay with those things.

Yikes. This whole narrative has reminded me why I'm so thankful to be away from the toxic church. Y'all are psycho

According to ECC people, being gay is equal to being:

Dishonest
Unethical
Vengeful
Lacking integrity
Greedy
Unable to be used by God for God's purposes

Good to know what you church teaches as "biblical" teachings on this matter.

This is appalling.

Church ("C"), you are better than this. Goodness, HUMANS, you are better than this.

GCx as a whole, ECC as a whole, this forum as a whole are NOT represented by a handful of posters on either side.

Really, did I say this, or anyone else?  Tom, we have said this about Tom Lyden based on available information about him.  That is all. 

Maybe this shows the mentality of the forum, if someone has a negative experience with one person within in GCx, well then by association all people within GCx are terrible, that is what can be assumed I guess, as that is what is being displayed on the forum.  Then I can add in the sensationalized words for impact...how appalling.

[Huldah]

I'm not arguing that the current process is perfect, I'm arguing that there is no perfect process. It doesn't matter who is on a board, or who does an investigation, if the results aren't what you expect or want, it is all too easy to undermine them by pointing out biases and possible conflicts of interest.

Well, the fact that no process is perfect is a given.

It does matter who's on the board, though. If you can't trust the disinterestedness of the board, then why even have a process? Or if it doesn't matter, then why not appoint Mark himself to the board? Or Suzanne? The board matters because observers need to have confidence that a good-faith effort was made to get to the truth. It reflects on the honesty and credibility of the organization.

It bears repeating: by appointing only trusted insiders to the board, ECC has set Mark up for failure. Even if Mark is actually, factually innocent--as opposed to being declared not guilty due to lack of solid evidence--his innocence will forever be in question because of the board members' obvious conflicts of interest.