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]

I am here to defend against people like you. Have you read your posts? They are awful, and you don't even see it. I had a friend who looked through this site who didn't have any context about anything, and they told me they thought it was absolutely toxic. That's an outside perspective validating what I just said. He was astonished by how long people hold on to there frustrations and anger. Kind of funny since people on here consider this place to be " healing" when it seems to do the opposite.  It fans the flame of hatred.

[Huldah]

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".

Fireball, if you think you're being helpful by coming here to a group of people who've already been hurt by your movement, so you can pile on more hurt by calling us "quick to judge" and "toxic," then I'm afraid I must burst your bubble. Your comments are not helpful.

[MicahJoelDarling]

Linda,

As best as I can, I'd like to try to bring clarity to some of these questions for you.

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

They had no idea that Suzanne was implying sexual abuse in her initial tweet, so they were referring to the 17 year old meeting with the therapist, Suzanne, John, Mark Bowen, my dad and my mom as well as the letter that was written by Suzanne and John.

If you think it is silly that they didn’t seem to think Suzanne might be claiming more than "spiritual abuse/questionable teaching" when she included “#metoo” in her tweet—which is a movement related 100% to sexual abuse—then you would be right. It was silly that they did not put that together. They were completely ignorant of the fact that Suzanne was implying sexual abuse in her initial tweet.

I’ll make two points on this:

• Since there were no accusations of sexual abuse in the letter or in the meeting with the therapist, it at least makes sense—albeit only a little bit—that ECC would not have thought anything else was being alleged in the initial tweet because no sexual abuse was ever alleged before. They thought Suzanne was trying to appropriate “#metoo” to fit something entirely unrelated to sexual abuse.
• They still should have seen the “#metoo” and realized what Suzanne was now trying to imply something else. This led to an ill-advised and confusing tweet from ECC that has now been dissected to nearly sub-atomic particles on this forum and social media.
  

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.

You’ve brought this up consistently enough over the last 6 months that I can no longer leave it unaddressed. Suzanne was one of my mom’s closest friends. That’s it. That’s the whole of it. Suzanne and John had issues they wanted to address with my father, and being that John and Suzanne were two of my parents best friends, it was not odd at all that my mom would be at a meeting with them addressing issues that they had with my dad.

If there was a couple that you and Terry were very close with and they had grievances with Terry that they wanted to share with him, would it be so extraordinary to think that you might want to be there when they shared those things with him? I don’t want to assume that that is how you would operate, but it doesn’t seem unreasonable to think so.
 
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?

They had no idea she was alleging sexual abuse and they literally thought she was just hypothetically postulating. Which to a degree, she was. She has made clear in many of her tweets/posts that part of the reason she wanted to make these accusations publicly in the first place was her belief that there could be more “victims”, not her knowledge that there was.

4. Why didn't Mark PERSONALLY issue a short statement denying the charges? Why ECC speak for him?
Because he was advised not to and he was trying to respect the wishes of his co-laborers.

I hope that helps bring clarity to some of these questions.

- Micah Darling

[OneOfMany]

I am here to defend against people like you. Have you read your posts? They are awful, and you don't even see it. I had a friend who looked through this site who didn't have any context about anything, and they told me they thought it was absolutely toxic. That's an outside perspective validating what I just said. He was astonished by how long people hold on to there frustrations and anger. Kind of funny since people on here consider this place to be " healing" when it seems to do the opposite.  It fans the flame of hatred.

You are confusing our still holding onto the past with sharing what happened. One can forgive and move on yet still share what happened and warn others. Forgiveness does not mean that one ignores what happened, especially when it is still in practice.

If you all were not here trying to say that the unhealthy practices at Evergreen were not true then I would not be posting at all. YOU and deniers are why I am still here.

[Linda]

Since I started this thread about the odd way this matter is being handled, I'd like to bring it back to the original topic.

Doesn't anyone think it's odd that ECC's first reply to charges of sexual abuse was a dismissive Tweet about this matter being fully heard?

Doesn't anyone think it odd that the same Tweet referenced a "gifting" of a million dollars?

Doesn't anyone think it odd that ECC never tried to contact Suzanne personally to even minimally ask what she was talking about? Rather they came back with a dismissive Tweet, waited a month, issued a statement, waited another week or so and had an attorney contact Suzanne. It almost makes it seem like they didn't need to ask because they already knew what she was talking about, doesn't it? Plus, they did refer to her being fully heard on "this matter" in the first Tweet.

Doesn't anyone think it odd that ECC backed away from that Tweet on February 26th, but issued no further statement of clarification?

Doesn't anyone think it odd that ECC would say they weren't going to discuss the matter on social media, but then criticized the charges as being unfair and unjust in sermons before the results of their investigation were finalized?

Have any of you defenders asked your pastors point blank what they meant by her being fully heard on "this matter"? Or, whether or not they had been made aware of the sexual abuse charges years ago? Have the pastors been up front with the congregation or hidden behind this is a workplace issue rather than a elder qualifications issue?

Do any of you defenders think it's odd that hundreds of people over several decades have been damaged by GCx teaching? Do you ever entertain the idea that you might not fully understand why people are here? Does it ever occur to you that you might not have the full story?

Do any of you think it's wrong for defenders to come on call people rude names and make vague threats quoting Scripture, suggest Suzanne is crazy or lying, or a criminal, judge whether or not people are Christians, or bitter, or unloving while in defense of a situation you know nothing about?

I have to assume that you who have taken over this forum are totally unaware of the damage that has been done by GCx to individuals, families, and marriages by the faulty teaching perpetuated by this group. Because if you knew the stories behind the names and you still posted what you post you would be among the most thoughtless people I have ever come across.

What we have here are serious charges of sexual abuse by multiple women and a church that has without facts questioned the integrity of the women and called the accusations unfair and unjust. Can't anyone see how wrong this is?

This is NOT how a healthy church would handle a serious charge of sexual abuse from multiple women. This is very odd and very bad.

[Sherlock]

Linda,
Your thought process is spot on, I have been asking myself the exact same questions from the beginning!
What “matter” was she heard on??
Why did so many people need to attend this meeting? If it was just about “accountability” having Kathy attend wouldn’t Mark B have sufficed? I find it very odd that a pastors wife would attend a meeting if this were a simple employment dispute or to clear up some kind of “misunderstanding” SOMETHING happened to prompt such a meeting in the first place, if MD denies the allegations why did the meeting take place at all (if nothing happened)??
Why does no one find this odd??
These are important questions that I very much doubt we will ever have an answer to. I also wholeheartedly agree this is taking much too long to be a simple cut & dry answer (if no wrongdoing was found at all).

[GodisFaithful]

I really appreciated Micah's respectful manner in answering some of the concerns from his perspective. He did not call us names or insinuate that we are all bad and awful to be asking questions and trying to connect the dots. I very much appreciate that.

But here is the problem. There has been an investigation, and we need to know the results from many people's perspective, not just the Darling family.

I respect that they have a perspective, but that is not an investigation of the facts from many different angles and documentation.

So, what is missing here is results of a thorough investigation.

[Phoenix]

Sorry Linda but somehow I believe if ECC had issued a denial statement some here would have been asking why they did that before the investigation was done.

(The following is pure opinion.)
Regarding the questions about others victims and acknowledging that in early January.  I am quite certain that NO ONE knew they existed.  All of these woman had kept this close to them.  Further, this is one of my biggest problems with the issue.  When "the matter" happened 20 years ago it appears no one asked or wanted to ask this big question... "what if this happened to others besides Suzanne".  Their original handling of SvD and failing to ask this logical question are my biggest problem.

[Linda]

Micah,
I saw your last comment after I posted my last post.
Thank you for your respectful response.

[Linda]

Phoenix,

I honestly don't understand why anyone would have questioned an honest denial from the ECC elders prior to the investigation. After all, they issued one on behalf of Mark.

In addition, they didn't seem to mind sermonizing about how unfair and unjust this has been for them so they seem selective in what they can and cannot say without any findings from the investigation.

[DarthVader]

Sorry Linda but somehow I believe if ECC had issued a denial statement some here would have been asking why they did that before the investigation was done.

(The following is pure opinion.)
Regarding the questions about others victims and acknowledging that in early January.  I am quite certain that NO ONE knew they existed.  All of these woman had kept this close to them.  Further, this is one of my biggest problems with the issue.  When "the matter" happened 20 years ago it appears no one asked or wanted to ask this big question... "what if this happened to others besides Suzanne".  Their original handling of SvD and failing to ask this logical question are my biggest problem.

Hey Phoenix - I would have thought several pastors knew about “NDA woman” at least, if that story is truthful?

[Linda]

Sorry Linda but somehow I believe if ECC had issued a denial statement some here would have been asking why they did that before the investigation was done.

(The following is pure opinion.)
Regarding the questions about others victims and acknowledging that in early January.  I am quite certain that NO ONE knew they existed.  All of these woman had kept this close to them.  Further, this is one of my biggest problems with the issue.  When "the matter" happened 20 years ago it appears no one asked or wanted to ask this big question... "what if this happened to others besides Suzanne".  Their original handling of SvD and failing to ask this logical question are my biggest problem.

Hey Phoenix - I would have thought several pastors knew about “NDA woman” at least, if that story is truthful?

Oh, I see your point. I think. They couldn't deny knowing about it if they knew about it.

[GodisFaithful]

Hey Phoenix,

Did you forget that Victim A and her husband sent a letter to at least one of the pastors, when they left the church, begging him to do something about Mark Darling's issue with women? She is someone who is credible, extremely. So this is one of the dots that does not connect. The pastors did know there were other women, but maybe they brushed them all off as untruthful or some such thing. Sad they did not take it seriously.

[Phoenix]

Hey Phoenix,

Did you forget that Victim A and her husband sent a letter to at least one of the pastors, when they left the church, begging him to do something about Mark Darling's issue with women? She is someone who is credible, extremely. So this is one of the dots that does not connect. The pastors did know there were other women, but maybe they brushed them all off as untruthful or some such thing. Sad they did not take it seriously.

You may be correct, I have a hard time keeping up and do not recall the point of the letter.  My post was only an attempt to answer, not defend. 

[Phoenix]

Sorry Linda but somehow I believe if ECC had issued a denial statement some here would have been asking why they did that before the investigation was done.

(The following is pure opinion.)
Regarding the questions about others victims and acknowledging that in early January.  I am quite certain that NO ONE knew they existed.  All of these woman had kept this close to them.  Further, this is one of my biggest problems with the issue.  When "the matter" happened 20 years ago it appears no one asked or wanted to ask this big question... "what if this happened to others besides Suzanne".  Their original handling of SvD and failing to ask this logical question are my biggest problem.

Hey Phoenix - I would have thought several pastors knew about “NDA woman” at least, if that story is truthful?

Ha!  Be careful about your assumptions.  I dare not say more.

[Phoenix]

Phoenix,

I honestly don't understand why anyone would have questioned an honest denial from the ECC elders prior to the investigation. After all, they issued one on behalf of Mark.

In addition, they didn't seem to mind sermonizing about how unfair and unjust this has been for them so they seem selective in what they can and cannot say without any findings from the investigation.

I beg to differ Linda, there are people on this site that see a conspiracy in any action taken.  That group is on the opposite end of the spectrum from the others that defend GCx/Evergreen regardless of the evidence place in front of them.

[DarthVader]

Sorry Linda but somehow I believe if ECC had issued a denial statement some here would have been asking why they did that before the investigation was done.

(The following is pure opinion.)
Regarding the questions about others victims and acknowledging that in early January.  I am quite certain that NO ONE knew they existed.  All of these woman had kept this close to them.  Further, this is one of my biggest problems with the issue.  When "the matter" happened 20 years ago it appears no one asked or wanted to ask this big question... "what if this happened to others besides Suzanne".  Their original handling of SvD and failing to ask this logical question are my biggest problem.

Hey Phoenix - I would have thought several pastors knew about “NDA woman” at least, if that story is truthful?

Ha!  Be careful about your assumptions.  I dare not say more.

Phoenix, it sounds like you know more than you are saying  Here are the assumptions - can you tell me which you believe is false? 1) "NDA woman" exists as described by SVD (e.g., a woman with a complaint of misconduct against MD who is not the same as Victim A, C, Natalie or Suzanne) 2) An NDA was created to legally enforce secrecy of her complaint 3) More than one pastor, including at least one still on staff signed the NDA...No worries if you can't answer - I wouldn't want you to violate your conscience. SVD also mentioned JVD was a party to the NDA if I recall correctly..

[Huldah]

I beg to differ Linda, there are people on this site that see a conspiracy in any action taken.

I would not call it a conspiracy. I would classify it as a pattern of behavior. That is, we expect that they will behave a certain way in the future because we've seen them behave that way repeatedly in the past.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

You are correct, I would have not believed a mere denial of all allegations.   Not sure if that's due to conspiracy beliefs or experience though.  I do agree with other statements you've made that it would have shown a lack of neutrality toward the investigation.

But it is interesting to ask if they didn't make a flat-out denial because some of them knew the allegations were true or could very possibly be true. 

I beg to differ Linda, there are people on this site that see a conspiracy in any action taken.  That group is on the opposite end of the spectrum from the others that defend GCx/Evergreen regardless of the evidence place in front of them.

[Linda]

In all honesty, my point in bringing this up was to suggest that perhaps the reason they didn't deny having heard of sexual abuse accusations was because they (and by they I mean some not all) were aware of the accusations.

If they honestly had never heard the charges, then the appropriate thing to do would have been to contact Suzanne and ask her to tell her story. If they disagreed with her charges, it would be right and wise to publicly deny knowledge of sexual abuse in a statement followed by, "We are submitting ourselves to a third party independent investigation with transparency so that the facts will show we have nothing to hide."