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.

[Fireball]

Or.... how about everyone just WAIT, instead of assuming the worst about these folks. How old are we all?

[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.

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?

I think you could have said that from the get go rather than a mocking parody of others.

[araignee19]

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.

Haha. How new logical fallicies are to me is irrelevant to this discussion, so you can keep wondering how long I’ve studied it if you must.

You are making a straw man argument based on satirical commentary. That is a form of argument. “In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.”

I call it lazy arguing because for all the time you spent writing that you did not address any of the actual content of Linda’s post and questions.

Edit: perhaps sloppy arguing more be a better description than lazy.

[araignee19]

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?

Question #3 is the most interesting to me. I would like an explanation of that one from ECC at some point. Why would Kathy have been involved? Could be a legitimate reason (maybe so Suzanne wasn’t the only woman?).

I think a release of some sort of statement or info at this point would be wise. ECC can’t exactly be surprised that there is speculation with such a long wait. They could at least say something. Oh well

[Fireball]

I have an idea?  How about you all make up your own BOT, since you all seem to be the experts in this and seem to know so much on how things should or shouldn't be done.

[Rypick]

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.

Haha. How new logical fallicies are to me is irrelevant to this discussion, so you can keep wondering how long I’ve studied it if you must.

You are making a straw man argument based on satirical commentary. That is a form of argument. “In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements typically used to persuade someone of something or to present reasons for accepting a conclusion.”

I call it lazy arguing because for all the time you spent writing that you did not address any of the actual content of Linda’s post and questions.

Edit: perhaps sloppy arguing more be a better description than lazy.

I believe you have set up a straw man by claiming that I failed to address Linda's questions. I wasn't attempting to address Linda's questions. That wasn't the goal.

[OneOfMany]

Or.... how about everyone just WAIT, instead of assuming the worst about these folks. How old are we all?

Why do people have to be patient? Who made that rule? And don't go quoting scripture because in this case it would be out of context.

[araignee19]

I think everyone had been plenty patient. At this point, the timeline has been stretched to unreasonable lengths. Time to say something. Time for some answers or some sort of statement in my opinion.

[Linda]

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.

I think questions 2 and 3 are very important and to those of us looking in the situation is very odd. It is totally appropriate to issue a denial (written by an attorney, if necessary) to answer charges made against you. The statement read could have been issued by MD.

The denial made on behalf of MD came 1 month after ECC Tweeted that Suzanne had been fully heard on the matter. "The matter" involved some type of abuse by MD that involved Suzanne and other women, AND it involved a cover up.

Here is the Tweet that started this:

"Pastor who abused me is still in pulpit though he was outed to other pastors that are still there.  Tweet is for me and other women abused by Mark Darling and Evergreen Community Church."

The allegation is that 1) Suzanne was abused by Mark Darling 2) that other pastors knew 3) "other women" were abused by MD.


The "other pastors" do not need to investigate as to whether or not they knew about the alleged abuse. They either knew about it or they didn't. I don't need to hire an investigator to tell me what I know about something! I already know what I know! This is what I mean by odd things are happening. The response is not normal.

IF they were unaware of the charges, then by all means it would be appropriate to issue a statement saying, "We are unaware of any abuse on the part of any pastor and certainly did not ever cover up any abuse." Instead, they waited nearly 2 months (February 26th) and issued an update that said their original Tweet was "ill-considered." This is what I mean by odd and why I titled this thread as such.

To those of us looking in, this is NOT how a healthy church would handle such charges. The unique thing involved in Suzanne's allegation is that it involved a cover up of sin on the part of pastors of a church that prides itself on "character matters". A healthy church would not view this as a work place issue. This is a "qualifications for eldership" issue. A healthy church would not issue a statement chiding the accuser as someone who had already been "fully heard".

The leadership certainly knows whether or not they had ever been aware of these allegations.  They don't need an investigator. If they had no idea what Suzanne was referring to in her tweet it would be absolutely appropriate to issue a simple statement that said something like: "We are taking these charges seriously and are looking into the matter of abuse committed by MD. Abuse of any kind is not fitting in the Church of Jesus Christ and will not be tolerated . We also take this opportunity to state categorically that we, the pastors of ECC, were unaware of these charges until now. We will be contacting Suzanne immediately to help her find a safe place to tell her story. We will comment no further on social media at this time."

It is odd that they did not make a statement like this from the beginning.

I can't buy into the idea that it would be inappropriate to issue a simple statement of denial because the matter was under investigation, but not odd to preach "sermons" about how unfair and unjust this is. These messages most definitely assigned blame to the victims before the investigation was complete. Even if the allegations prove to be true or partially true, they have now thrown the women claiming abuse under the bus by claiming it was "unfair".

[Linda]

And another thing that's odd. In all this talk about things being "unjust" and "unfair", has anyone yet found out what they are referring to as being unjust and unfair? It is odd that they are not specific, but at the same time use words to communicate that they are being treated poorly.

ECC pastors apparently have no problem saying things are unjust and unfair, but so far have not been willing to say that the charges are "untrue" because they have yet to issue a denial of the charges made against them–charges that MD abuse was outed to other pastors. This is odd.

[GodisFaithful]

To be fair in the beginnings of this conversation, DV wrote a long piece speculating on why there is a long wait for the BOT, but he put a disclaimer at the beginning of it and said that if you did not want to read about speculation you did not need to participate further. I am going to add a little speculation and if it makes you mad that people don't WAIT (except Brent Knox who gets to come out with a verdict ahead of time--how old is he, anyway???) then you do not need to read further.

Linda, what I am wondering is following:

When Loey and Suzanne and Victim A, all three of them, asked that the pastors do something about Mark Darling's inappropriate issue with women, I am wondering if Mark Darling's word was enough for the pastors and Mark flatly denied any of the allegations. The pastors believed him and thought all these women "took it wrong". Mark is a touchy feely person who hugs and cares and it is easy for needy women to misread his efforts to help them. So then, when Suzanne wanted to confront Mark, they made her cross out the sexual abuse because they believed she was making it up and that it amounted to slander and gossip and thought she would not have the guts to talk about it in front of Kathy. And the other women also were brushed off as a bit deranged and making stuff up.

So, in this scenario, the pastors never covered anything up because they never believed any of it.

Now the issue of "fully heard" is a real stretch. Also, sending John and Suzanne as point persons/missionaries if the pastors thought she was a little deranged, that is also a stretch and makes a person scratch their head. That is not how you usually get rid of someone, by sending them to the mission field.

Hmmmm....there sure are some things that just don't add up.

But maybe the only concern the pastors have is losing any faithful followers, and if most people are super loyal they won't be asking hard questions and if they do then the pastors can just tell them that their role is to follow, not question. And maybe that will be good enough for most Evergreeners.

So they lose a few. Usually when they lose someone, they spin it as there was something wrong with that person's heart.

Then all they have to worry about is if another follow up Fox 9 report comes out, or a law suit by the women.

They certainly don't need to worry about us, a motley forum group who are just "bitter" and "unhappy." Only the followers do seem to worry about us, because they come here all upset about us speculating on why the BOT is taking a long time.

I feel for the BOT because they have "seen it all" and have to figure out what to do.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

I didn't mean to shift the focus of the original questions/comments by shifting away from the original tweet to the BOT.  Sorry Linda  

Asking questions and speculating are appropriate forms of critical thinking.  Perhaps some don't like that it's being done in a communal form on this forum.  But to "Just wait" and then accept whatever the BOT says is not critical thinking.  And most of us doing the speculating are open to reasonable explanations if offered.  And by reasonable I don't mean "because the pastors said so."

"Why was this done?" "What does it mean that other alternatives weren't pursued?" and "What is an ideal response?" are valid questions, especially when the entire integrity of an organization has been questioned by many of us on this forum.  ECC controls the narrative with their official statements, their teachings from the pulpit (the ones about criticism really seemed like a desperate attempt at self-preservation), and obviously whatever they are spreading around the inside of the church.  To have people on the outside push and challenge is NOT a bad thing. A healthy church, if they found themselves in a rough spot, would back up and say "okay, we've obviously missed something here, messed up, etc. and we will consider anything helpful no matter the source."  Healthy groups are open groups with more fluid boundaries, unlike closed groups that try to keep others (and their criticisms) out.  

I personally don't find Mark Darling's lack of denial as problematic since I'm guessing he was under legal advice and possibly even employer mandate not to speak at all.  Can you imagine the alternative if he wouldn't have been asked to be silent?  I mean, we saw what Jeromy started in terms of victim intimidation--Mark could have done much worse in rallying the troops.  He could have heaped liability on to himself AND ECC.  So, I find it acceptable that his church spoke for him.

As far as them not denying a cover-up...I guess this is tricky because if nothing happened, nothing was covered up.  So you almost have to determine first that abuse took place, that it was communicated to leaders, and that said leaders did nothing.  I think it was smart that ECC didn't deny it, because how would they ever back out of that corner?  If they denied everything there would have been no need for an investigation?  Even if they disbelieved SVD from the beginning, they realized that a denial from them alone wouldn't make the issue go away.  They at least initiated the investigation for PR, if not out of good will on the part of some (and I hope there was).

[DarthVader]

I have an idea?  How about you all make up your own BOT, since you all seem to be the experts in this and seem to know so much on how things should or shouldn't be done.

Fireball, Rypick, this is what I don't understand.  There are probably chat boards all over the internet saying all kinds of things I don't agree with, many with a lot of conversations I wouldn't want to be a part of, going on right now, this very minute.  My solution to that "problem" (which makes it not a problem for me) is very, very simple and easy to execute...wait for it...I don't go to those websites and engage in discussion...(shocker I know) - it's like they don't even exist to me - it works quite well.  As far as I can tell, in this thread, at least, no one has verbally attacked anyone you hold dear. So just curious as to what good you think you're achieving by your participation, at least on this thread? You don't want to engage in meaningful dialog, you've shown no empathy to anyone else's point of view...so what's the point?  Do you really have that much free time on your hands?    Wish you the best.

[Linda]

I personally don't find Mark Darling's lack of denial as problematic since I'm guessing he was under legal advice and possibly even employer mandate not to speak at all.  Can you imagine the alternative if he wouldn't have been asked to be silent?  I mean, we saw what Jeromy started in terms of victim intimidation--Mark could have done much worse in rallying the troops.  He could have heaped liability on to himself AND ECC.  So, I find it acceptable that his church spoke for him.

As far as them not denying a cover-up...I guess this is tricky because if nothing happened, nothing was covered up.  So you almost have to determine first that abuse took place, that it was communicated to leaders, and that said leaders did nothing.  I think it was smart that ECC didn't deny it, because how would they ever back out of that corner?  If they denied everything there would have been no need for an investigation?  Even if they disbelieved SVD from the beginning, they realized that a denial from them alone wouldn't make the issue go away.  They at least initiated the investigation for PR, if not out of good will on the part of some (and I hope there was).

To clarify, what strikes me as odd isn't that MD is not speaking (that seems totally reasonable), but rather that he did not speak for himself in his denial. I totally understand and think it is appropriate that he not speak beyond a denial if the allegations are not true, and let the investigation proceed. However, what struck me as odd about this is that the statement issued was not a first person statement, but rather ECC speaking on behalf of MD. I think in court that would be considered hearsay.

What was actually said was, "Mark unequivocally denies these allegations and he is cooperating fully with this process." Technically, this is not Mark denying the allegations. This is someone else saying Mark is denying the allegations. Perhaps it is silly to notice things like that, but nevertheless, it is a curiosity to me that they waited a month to issue a statement and then when they did, they spoke on behalf of someone else, but not on behalf of themselves.

Also, yes if nothing happened, nothing was covered up. That's why I was suggesting they state that they were unaware of the allegations of sexual abuse. All they stated was, "In addition, this person has implied that Evergreen Church was aware of the offensive behavior and did not act appropriately." This seems odd to me. This sentence should have been followed by, "We categorically deny being aware of the offensive behavior."

Of course, if they were aware of the offensive behavior and did not act appropriately, you are correct in saying it was smart to not deny it because if they had denied it and the investigation showed they knew and acted inappropriately, it would be difficult to back out of that corner. Perhaps that was my point. The fact that they didn't deny it is odd. It almost makes it sound like some pastors knew something. They certainly knew about "this matter" that they referenced in their original, ill-considered public reply to Suzanne.

[Rypick]

I have an idea?  How about you all make up your own BOT, since you all seem to be the experts in this and seem to know so much on how things should or shouldn't be done.

Fireball, Rypick, this is what I don't understand.  There are probably chat boards all over the internet saying all kinds of things I don't agree with, many with a lot of conversations I wouldn't want to be a part of, going on right now, this very minute.  My solution to that "problem" (which makes it not a problem for me) is very, very simple and easy to execute...wait for it...I don't go to those websites and engage in discussion...(shocker I know) - it's like they don't even exist to me - it works quite well.  As far as I can tell, in this thread, at least, no one has verbally attacked anyone you hold dear. So just curious as to what good you think you're achieving by your participation, at least on this thread? You don't want to engage in meaningful dialog, you've shown no empathy to anyone else's point of view...so what's the point?  Do you really have that much free time on your hands?    Wish you the best.

DV, it's not that I don't want to engage in meaningful dialogue, I just don't believe that can be achieved on this forum. To that end, I'm going to send you a PM to address your other questions. It may not be tonight, but soon.

[GodisFaithful]

Linda,

As to your initial post about what is odd, the quote from EC was "this was investigated."

So your question is reasonable. In that meeting with the therapist and others what was investigated? If it is true that the pastors crossed stuff off before the meeting then it was NOT investigated. If they "heard" it because Suzanne talked about sexual abuse anyway, they did not want to hear it. You wonder if they were just putting on a good show for the therapist. And *something* was agreed upon, as a course of action, because later when Mark Bowen was asked by Heidi about Mark Darling following through on action the reply was "no, he decided he didn't need it." So, this makes me wonder if they were just trying to get the therapist and Suzanne off their back and thought it would go away.

It's a can of worms, really. So many unanswered questions. The investigation that ended in May probably uncovered a good bit of it, but will we ever know the answers? You were asking if ECC attenders know what "matter" was investigated and fully heard, but how many of them care what it was? If they just talk about Suzanne as being hurt and unstable then they set up a reason not to answer questions about the matter.

The way this is set up, there is no transparency into any of Mark Darlings actions or the women's stories because it will be behind lock and key.

[Fireball]

...... again, speculation, speculation! You guys are a sad group of people.

[OneOfMany]

...... again, speculation, speculation! You guys are a sad group of people.

Then why are you here?

[Fireball]

To give another perspective, unlike you who are so quick to judge and believe the worst about people. This place I'm sorry, but it is so toxic. I would never tell anyone to come here to try and "heal".

[OneOfMany]

To give another perspective, unlike you who are so quick to judge and believe the worst about people. This place I'm sorry, but it is so toxic. I would never tell anyone to come here to try and "heal".

It does not make sense that you are posting here. You say it is toxic. Then why are you here? This is a forum with the stated purpose of "De-Commissioned, a forum for former members of the Great Commission movement (aka GCM, GCC, GCAC, GCI, and the Blitz) to discuss problems they've experienced in the association's practices and theology."

If the purpose of this forum is not your purpose than you are in the wrong place. Start your own forum.