Someone Needs to Say It, Odd Things Are Happening

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.

[Linda]

Someone needs to say it. So I will.

What is going on is very odd.

Nearly 6 months ago, on January 5, Suzanne Tweeted. Her Tweet had 3 allegations.

1. She had been abused by Mark Darling. The allegation was sexual abuse because she used  #metoo.
2. Evergreen leaders knew about this and did nothing, and
3. There were other victims.

ECC replied to her tweet 3 days later, on January 8th with these words:

“20 years ago, this was investigated by EC leadership, board chairman, & 3rd party mediator. After a review of facts, mediator and van Dykes were satisfied by the integrity of the Darlings’ and EC’s response. We are willing to talk privately if you want to share more concerns.”

“The follow up statement even says: “Suzanne was fully heard in this matter 20 years ago” and lists her husband John, Mark and Kathy Darling, and Mark Bowen as also hearing ‘this matter’.”

What was investigated? What was heard? What is “this matter” referring to?

Do ECC attenders know what their elders were talking about when they referred to “this matter”? It is certainly odd if they don’t.

One would assume from the #metoo context that Suzanne was referencing sexual abuse because that’s what #metoo means. So were the elders acknowledging in their Tweet that they were aware of charges of sexual abuse many years ago? If so, and there was any truth to the charges, and they did nothing and did not notify the congregation, this speaks to a cover up on the part of the elders who knew which is what Suzanne asserted in her original Tweet.

Apparently all are in agreement that a meeting was held with a therapist (although ECC referred to the therapist as a “mediator”). My understanding is that Suzanne footed the bill for this meeting and it was her therapist.

This raises many questions. Here are a few.

1. What exactly is the “this matter” that ECC referenced in both their Tweet and statement?

2. If it was an accusation related only to his job as a pastor (such as spiritual abuse, or questionable teaching) it would make sense that Mark Bowen was there representing the elders. What does not make sense in this case is why Kathy would be there to hear out charges of faulty teaching or some other “theological” dispute since she was neither an elder or employee of ECC. Wives don't generally accompany their husbands to business related meetings with “therapist/mediators”. It’s odd.

3. In ECC’s reply to Suzanne’s Tweet, ECC made no mention of the other victims she referenced. Why is this? Have ECC pastors denied knowledge of ever hearing charges of sexual abuse from anyone?

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Yes, I've been thinking more about that original tweet as well and I agree that there seems to be a lot behind it.  I think your points are spot on, that Suzanne's  tweet implied sexual abuse with the use of #metoo and the responder realized that. Otherwise the ECC response should have been totally different. 

When I first read the title of your thread, I thought perhaps you were going to comment on how long it is taking the ECC BOT to say anything.  I would assume that had all pastors been cleared of wrong-doing through Joan's report, they could easily have announced that conclusion by now, reinstated Mark, and moved on.  I mean, which one of wouldn't exonerate our loved ones/ministry partner/church, etc. immediately if that was possible?  In fact, if Mark Darling and the other pastors were cleared of wrong-doing in Joan's investigation, it is unfair to them to leave this issue lingering for so long.  If Joan's report shows the accusations made were all "false allegations," it would be unethical for the BOT to not have put it right by now.

They have mentioned (hidden behind, in my opinion) employment law for their reason not to be transparent, but it seems like if an employer investigates an employee and finds them innocent, the employee would have some legal pull to have themselves cleared as soon as possible.  Although heir sermons lately have addressed this issue on a personal and church-wide level, so to make this merely an employment issue would be hypocritical. GCC does not approach ministry as "just a job" providing a professional service (as most people in ministry don't).  So this issue is not just about a "job."

We all know that Joan was going to hand in her report at the end of May, and we are coming up toward the end of June. 

[OneOfMany]

They are behaving as they always have. But not sharing information that a healthy organization or system would share.

Ignoring this will not make it go away. That has worked in the past for them so I suspect that they hope it will work now. But it will not. A line has been crossed and silence will not make it go away. Convincing the sheep that it is Godly to ignore it will not make it go away.

[DarthVader]

As you all know, I've been very critical of what I've seen as missteps in how Evergreen has handled this, but they did hire Joan, who by all accounts has been a very thorough and objective investigator.

Let me disclaim that this is all speculation, and probably unhelpful - so spare me a lecture on that, just don't continue to read if you don't want to -

What I believe is quite likely is happening now is the BoT is divided, perhaps deeply. No one expected 4 other women to share stories similar to Suzanne - she was initially written off as a bitter woman with an axe to grind against Evergreen, with possible mental issues, and when 4 other women, possibly including at least one very credible current ECC attender, corroborated her story by sharing similar accounts, it threw everyone for a loop.  I'm guessing the staff on the BoT expected this to be a very short investigation basically exonerating everyone of everything, relatively quickly.  They now have in their hands a report, very thorough, objective, well documented, that does not do that, even though a report exonerating everyone of everything is what they expected and wanted, and they don't know what to do with it.

This isn't a Elder board, elected by the congregation, it's, in general a group of younger, less experienced people with fewer gray hairs, and less of a view of themselves as objective guardians of Evergreen's reputation, independent from the Pastors. At most churches, the Elder board would have selected the pastors, and feel a sense of responsibility for any misconduct they have may have committed, here, we have a Board of Trustees selected by the pastors, not vice versa, not elders (because we all know pastors should be the only elders in the GCx micro verse, despite every other mainstream church believing quite the opposite).  They are not prepared for this and were not selected with this type of responsibility in mind. Nonetheless, some, maybe a majority, maybe not, have read the report, taken it for what it is, and are advocating for the type of hard, tough actions that would restore confidence in Evergreen.  Others though, can't see past their personal relationships (e.g., imagine Todd Goodwin, trying to be an objective judge of his mentor, good friend and father of his partner in house church ministry) or past the fact that in the GCx world pastors are on pedestals much higher than most other churches with stronger congregational leadership, and they are resisting tough action despite the facts.  They have a long list of mitigating factors - it was a long time ago, there was no intent to cause harm, the standard for pastoral conduct weren't well defined at the time, etc. etc. etc., not good reasons, but reasons to not take tough actions.

Right now, my guess is one side is trying to persuade as many of the other as they to join their cause so that when decisions are presented to the congregation, it can be from a "united" board, even if that's a facade.  If the decision is no tough action, and the most independent of the BoT members (e.g., my BoT member who doesn't know Mark at all, didn't grow up GCM, etc.) resign their role in protest, that is a disaster for ECC.  On the other hand, if 3 of the "protect our pastors" BoT publicly decry a decision for tough action, you could imagine The Rock splitting off to form it's own church, outside of ECC, and presenting GCC with decision of whether or not to accept it's affiliation with them. I hope the cause of integrity and justice wins out, but the longer that it takes to get a decision, the more likely it is that the Board is deeply divided, which is a better outcome than clear exoneration, but sad.

My prior church had a similar incident (one) although it was reported to the elders immediately (which proves why congregational selected elders may be a better structure than "mutually accountability" given at least 2 of these incidents were reported to other pastors - NDA woman and Suzanne) and dealt with in a matter of weeks, not months, and without anyone even feeling the need for an outside investigator.  The pastor is no longer in his role - and some people did leave because they thought he deserved a second chance, but the church has moved on, and there has even been some healing with the former pastor.

Whether I stay or go, I hope ECC learns from this and puts much better checks and balances in place than the illusion of mutual accountability. Mutual accountability works great for trying to lose weight, or stay on a workout plan, or to quit drinking, real, structural accountability works better when someone is getting paid to do a job with real responsibility for others.

My prayers are with the BoT.

[Heidi]

I am in agreement with you DV and others.    It seems hypocritical that the “elder lead” church that I grew up in has now made a questionable character issue a “work place issue”.  I am not sure when the church , or the “bride “ of Jesus Christ became a “work place” and the elders give over the reigns of a the church to a secret board.  I do not see this as a work place issue at all.  I do not think that many people do.  The word says “to obey is better than sacrifice...”. It makes me grieve that Evergreen wants to keep doing church,and sacrificing time , energy and money to do outreach.  God wants obedience not sacrifice.  This really can not be swept under the rug. 

[Linda]

Interesting thoughts OOM, Rebel, DV, and Heidi.

I've been trying to organize my thoughts on this ever since ECC began their defense with that first Tweet and all that has happened since, including a second public statement, a statement about the original Tweet, several "messages" referring to the situation, and a variety of people defending MD/ECC by boldly and rudely coming on this forum in attack mode. I'll try to do it in a few shorter posts. All of them are under the category of "This is Odd".

I shall call it "The Questioning".
If you would like a soundtrack to help stimulate the little gray cells, might I recommend "Strange Boat" by the Waterboys.  Here's a link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-NXwRUQcmg

Back to the oddities.

It seems to me that when a person is alleged to have done something, there are two options. Either the person did that thing or the person didn't do that thing.

I can assure you that if my husband or I were accused of this and it were not true, we would immediately and personally issue a short public statement denying it. In addition, we would contact the person asking her to issue a correction and cease and desist from making statements like this in the future.

I can also assure you that if the charges were true or partly true, we would not issue a statement saying, "You were fully heard, and, oh by the way, remember we gifted you a million dollars to follow your dream?" We would immediately contact the person and ask her what specifically she was talking about and what she wanted us to do about it.

Of course, the sticky part here is that this is also an accusation of a cover up. She said they had already talked about these issues. If her accusations are true, they had already agreed upon a plan of action so calling her would make no sense.

Now things get tricky. If some ECC leaders (my guess here is that a few would know and a few would be in the dark on this) were aware of these allegations in the past and any were true, ECC is in a pickle. What can they do? They can't deny the charges and if they admit they knew and covered they have blown their reputation as "character matters" guys. So, they say nothing. They decided to make it a "work place issue" so they can keep the findings confidential. In the meantime, they say, "It's not fair how she did this. It's not just how she did this. She should have done it differently." (Insert Shimei reference here.)

Questions

1. Why didn't Mark PERSONALLY issue a short statement denying the charges? Why did ECC speak for him?

2. When ECC issued their statement saying Mark denied the charges, why didn't ECC leaders take that opportunity to deny the charges of a cover up? Why have ECC leaders never denied knowing?

3. Why are ECC leaders attacking those alleging abuse by calling the situation unfair and unjust before the results of the report are made public? If there is an ounce of truth to the charges this is absolutely wrong and may be one of the most arrogant things they've ever done. IF YOU HAVE ABUSED SOMEONE OR COVERED IT UP, IT'S NOT ABOUT YOU. YOU DON'T GET TO SAY, "THERE ARE SOME THINGS HERE THAT AREN'T FAIR. LIKE THEY TWEETED IT. OR THEY PUT IT ON FACEBOOK. OR THEY PUT IT ON A FORUM." What you say is, "We did it. We were wrong. We are sorry. What can we do to fix it?"

[Rypick]

It is taking a long time for the BOT to make a public announcement.

Here’s what I think is going on: I think the BOT actually made their decision pretty quickly, which was obviously “guilty.” Then they took a couple of days to hatch their cover-up strategy, because that’s what they do. Once they had that, they sent TG over to MD’s house to talk it over with him, since they are best friends. Unfortunately, seven months of isolation has left MD a couple crayons short of a full box, if you know what I mean. MD saw TG coming up the driveway, but mistook him for the IRS, coming to investigate MD and JD’s questionable financial dealings. MD met TG at the door with his 10-guage shotgun (you know, because a 12-guage just doesn’t kick enough for MD). He shot TG dead. Then, realizing his mistake, he called BK and MB for advice. They rushed right over. However, they noticed that something didn’t look quite right around TG’s lips and eyes. Then they realized that it wasn’t actually TG, but someone wearing a TG mask! They removed the mask, to discover that it was actually SVD! Then they noticed that the blood spilling from the shotgun wound was green. Upon autopsy (which they performed in MD’s basement, next to a roaring fire, with JD guarding the door with his handmade whip, and MD’s wife looking on approvingly), they discovered that SVD is actually an alien! So, that would be the reason for the hold up. I mean, first they had to dispose of AlienSVD’s body. Then they realized that having MD kill one of his accusers would be frowned upon, even within GCM (where there are clearly no moral standards). Plus, the newly discovered proof that aliens exist undermines Christianity as a whole. There is no way they can hang onto their high and lofty positions if all of Christianity is found to be false! This calls for a much bigger cover-up. These things take time.

I know that this all sounds implausible, but think about it…it all makes perfect sense. It has to be true!

[Linda]

Rypick,

Have ECC leaders ever publicly denied the charges of a cover up?

Why hasn't Mark personally issued a public denial of the charges?

Why is ECC calling this unfair and unjust before the results are out? Why are they using the pulpit to attack women claiming abuse?

When ECC referred to "this matter" in their first Tweet, what was the "this matter" they were referring to?

If the meeting with the therapist was about a conflict with Mark's role as pastor, why was Kathy there?

Has ECC ever acknowledged the fact that there are several other women who have come forward with similar stories? Has ECC denied knowing about these other women?

Why do you mock people asking honest questions?

[Rypick]

Why do you mock people asking honest questions?

Because I was directed to by my handlers. It's what you do when you are part of ECC's hit squad. Don't blame me, I've been brainwashed, remember?

[Linda]

No one expected 4 other women to share stories similar to Suzanne - she was initially written off as a bitter woman with an axe to grind against Evergreen, with possible mental issues, and when 4 other women, possibly including at least one very credible current ECC attender, corroborated her story by sharing similar accounts, it threw everyone for a loop.

This sentence caught my eye.

When you say "no one expected" who are you referring to? Congregants? All pastors? Some pastors?

When you say "she was initially written off as a bitter woman with an ax to grind against ECC, etc...", how was she written off? Was this through private conversations you and others had with ECC leaders, in other words, was this the private talking points from the top dogs? Or, are you referring to commenters here on the forum, Facebook, and Twitter? Or something else. I guess my real question is, were ECC leaders implying behind the scenes that she was bitter and perhaps even crazy?

[Wrestling]

Why do you mock people asking honest questions?

Because I was directed to by my handlers. It's what you do when you are part of ECC's hit squad. Don't blame me, I've been brainwashed, remember?

This is all so sad.

[Rypick]

Why do you mock people asking honest questions?

Because I was directed to by my handlers. It's what you do when you are part of ECC's hit squad. Don't blame me, I've been brainwashed, remember?

This is all so sad.

I agree.

For those who aren't understanding my creative writing project this morning, it is commentary on the inability to be patient and wait for the results to come out. The BOT is taking longer than some people think they should. Therefore, the worst case scenario must be true.

There was no due date on the release of the results. The timeline was made up in your own head. The BOT didn’t meet your made up timeline.  None of us has any idea why it is taking so much time. It could be any number of reasons. Instead of waiting patiently, let's write long, speculative stories and try to direct the narrative down a dark and sinister path.

Why can't we just be patient?

[Linda]

My comments are not related to the BOT.

This thread is about the odd ways that ECC has handled this from the start which include:

1. A misguided reply tweet acknowledging "something" was discussed with a therapist.
2. MD never personally denying the accusations, but using a spokesperson.
3. ECC leadership never denying the accusation of a cover up.
4. ECC using the power of the pulpit to accuse people of being unfair and unjust before any BOT decision was made.

This is not how a healthy church would have handled charges of this nature.

[Huldah]

The BOT is taking longer than some people think they should. Therefore, the worst case scenario must be true.

There was no due date on the release of the results. The timeline was made up in your own head. The BOT didn’t meet your made up timeline.  None of us has any idea why it is taking so much time. It could be any number of reasons.

Rypick, you may be right. However, just off the top of my head, I can't think of any legitimate reason that ECC wouldn't release the results immediately, if the results cleared Mark and the other pastors. Can you?

[GodisFaithful]

Linda,

Listening to Strange Boat helped me to focus my poor brain on how strange it is that Brent said that "it has been unfair, unjust" before any decision was made about the veracity of the women who came forward with accusations against Mark being inappropriate and Evergreen pastors covering up for Mark. Brent has a very powerful platform on which to express his views and he is not being patient about the BOT's decision, is he?

What is unfair and unjust about an Evergreen appointed BOT handling the report, while keeping all of the contents a secret from the public? Oh, and the membership of the BOT was supposed to be a secret, too, with only the pastors knowing the full membership.

But Brent kept it very vague. Just, generally, unfair and unjust, before knowing what their hired lawyer found in her thorough investigation.

[araignee19]

It is taking a long time for the BOT to make a public announcement.

Here’s what I think is going on: I think the BOT actually made their decision pretty quickly, which was obviously “guilty.” Then they took a couple of days to hatch their cover-up strategy, because that’s what they do. Once they had that, they sent TG over to MD’s house to talk it over with him, since they are best friends. Unfortunately, seven months of isolation has left MD a couple crayons short of a full box, if you know what I mean. MD saw TG coming up the driveway, but mistook him for the IRS, coming to investigate MD and JD’s questionable financial dealings. MD met TG at the door with his 10-guage shotgun (you know, because a 12-guage just doesn’t kick enough for MD). He shot TG dead. Then, realizing his mistake, he called BK and MB for advice. They rushed right over. However, they noticed that something didn’t look quite right around TG’s lips and eyes. Then they realized that it wasn’t actually TG, but someone wearing a TG mask! They removed the mask, to discover that it was actually SVD! Then they noticed that the blood spilling from the shotgun wound was green. Upon autopsy (which they performed in MD’s basement, next to a roaring fire, with JD guarding the door with his handmade whip, and MD’s wife looking on approvingly), they discovered that SVD is actually an alien! So, that would be the reason for the hold up. I mean, first they had to dispose of AlienSVD’s body. Then they realized that having MD kill one of his accusers would be frowned upon, even within GCM (where there are clearly no moral standards). Plus, the newly discovered proof that aliens exist undermines Christianity as a whole. There is no way they can hang onto their high and lofty positions if all of Christianity is found to be false! This calls for a much bigger cover-up. These things take time.

I know that this all sounds implausible, but think about it…it all makes perfect sense. It has to be true!

Straw man fallacy alert! Beautiful example of taking a legitimate thought to the absurd extreme to make it easy to tear down. Lovely job! And lazy arguing.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZkCPo7tC0

[DarthVader]

My comments are not related to the BOT.

This thread is about the odd way that ECC has handled this from the start which include:

1. A misguided reply tweet acknowledging "something" was discussed with a therapist.
2. MD never personally denying the accusations, but using a spokesperson.
3. ECC leadership never denying the accusation of a cover up.
4. ECC using the power of the pulpit to accuse people of being unfair and unjust before any BOT decision was made.

This is not how a healthy church would have handled charges of this nature.

Linda, I think 1 & 4 are valid but I would take issue with #3 - the coverup was a subject of the investigation, if they had denied the allegation I would have found fault with them for denying something the Board through Joan was investigating; her results of the investigation are what we should be looking to and these should address the coverup vs. ECC statements on the matter prior to the release of the results.  On #2 - my assumption is the Board did not want MD publicly litigating this in the court of public opinion and instructed him to not comment beyond the denial that was issued through ECC on his behalf.  As he is an employee he is subject to their direction, so I don't fault him - at all - for not commenting.

[Rypick]

It is taking a long time for the BOT to make a public announcement.

Here’s what I think is going on: I think the BOT actually made their decision pretty quickly, which was obviously “guilty.” Then they took a couple of days to hatch their cover-up strategy, because that’s what they do. Once they had that, they sent TG over to MD’s house to talk it over with him, since they are best friends. Unfortunately, seven months of isolation has left MD a couple crayons short of a full box, if you know what I mean. MD saw TG coming up the driveway, but mistook him for the IRS, coming to investigate MD and JD’s questionable financial dealings. MD met TG at the door with his 10-guage shotgun (you know, because a 12-guage just doesn’t kick enough for MD). He shot TG dead. Then, realizing his mistake, he called BK and MB for advice. They rushed right over. However, they noticed that something didn’t look quite right around TG’s lips and eyes. Then they realized that it wasn’t actually TG, but someone wearing a TG mask! They removed the mask, to discover that it was actually SVD! Then they noticed that the blood spilling from the shotgun wound was green. Upon autopsy (which they performed in MD’s basement, next to a roaring fire, with JD guarding the door with his handmade whip, and MD’s wife looking on approvingly), they discovered that SVD is actually an alien! So, that would be the reason for the hold up. I mean, first they had to dispose of AlienSVD’s body. Then they realized that having MD kill one of his accusers would be frowned upon, even within GCM (where there are clearly no moral standards). Plus, the newly discovered proof that aliens exist undermines Christianity as a whole. There is no way they can hang onto their high and lofty positions if all of Christianity is found to be false! This calls for a much bigger cover-up. These things take time.

I know that this all sounds implausible, but think about it…it all makes perfect sense. It has to be true!

Straw man fallacy alert! Beautiful example of taking a legitimate thought to the absurd extreme to make it easy to tear down. Lovely job! And lazy arguing.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cGZkCPo7tC0

This whole fallacy thing must be new to you, eh? It's all exciting, and you start seeing everything through that filter.

The issue here is that I wasn't actually arguing anything. I was using satire as commentary.

Also, it took at least 15 minutes to write and proofread that, and another 5 to post it. That's not THAT lazy.

[Rypick]

The BOT is taking longer than some people think they should. Therefore, the worst case scenario must be true.

There was no due date on the release of the results. The timeline was made up in your own head. The BOT didn’t meet your made up timeline.  None of us has any idea why it is taking so much time. It could be any number of reasons.

Rypick, you may be right. However, just off the top of my head, I can't think of any legitimate reason that ECC wouldn't release the results immediately, if the results cleared Mark and the other pastors. Can you?

I can think of loads of reasons for the hold up. How do we even know the BOT has met? Maybe something unrelated has happened that has kept them from even meeting.
Maybe they are planning to release all sorts of evidence, but that all has to be double-checked by a lawyer first.
There, that's 2 just off the top of my head. Think harder and you can probably come up with a few of your own.

[GodisFaithful]

Yes, perhaps they have learned to check with a lawyer before making a statement so that they do not incriminate themselves inadvertently.

Maybe two members of the BOT got food poisoning and they are hospitalized or something like that. Or maybe one of them got an ulcer or had a stroke and this is too much stress, to come to a conclusion.

Or maybe their computer crashed or got damaged by lightening.

Or maybe they don't think they should be making this decision and don't know who or where to turn.

Or maybe...well, I think I need to listen to Strange Boat again to come up with any other ideas.