The Digital Lynch Mob of the #MeToo Movement is in Our Midst

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.

[Roger Dodger]

For the past 4 months we’ve seen the impact of the #MeToo and #ChurchToo movement at work here on this forum. Some here would say that MD got exactly what he deserved with his reputation and credibility being decimated without having the opportunity to prove his innocence or even know the identity of his accusers. I am a male who tries to live a righteous life, but it seems it all could be taken away, just like that, with an unfounded accusation.

I hope that sharing this article opens some eyes to the danger of this movement. The ultimate harm it could do to The Church and fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ is very real. The next one accused could be you, your husband, your son, your father, or son-in-law. 

http://www.qando.net/2018/01/11/the-digital-lynch-mob-of-the-metoo-movement/

"Elsewhere Roiphe was branded an ‘Uncle Tom’ of gender, ‘trash’, a ‘bitch’ of course, a ‘demon’, and a ‘danger’ to good feminists who simply want to keep criminalising men without the benefit of such archaic things as due process or legal investigation. And all of this came from women, from women who pose as pro-women. Writer Nicole Cliff even encouraged writers to pull their pieces from Harper’s and offered to pay them to do so – an explicit attempt to heap editorial pressure on Harper’s to pull Roiphe’s piece / silence the evil witch. Five writers pulled pieces from Harper’s. Self-censorship to the end of censoring a woman who disagrees with mainstream feminists – what a degraded spectacle."

[ShineTheLight]

Are men ever falsely accused. YES.  Is church a place where it happens frequently - I'd guess not.  As we have seen here, the church power dynamics totally favor the accused, not the accuser, even to the point where one of the accused best friends (Todd) and fellow staff members (Jim, Lynn) get to be his judge and jury - if I'm ever on trial, I want those odds.  The Willow Creek victims weren't smart enough to come out on social media day 1 (or maybe they just wanted to be good citizens and follow the church's process) and a secret investigation went on for FOUR YEARS with their church smearing them in the media when it finally did come out.

When a child sex abuser pastor in Memphis confesses (Andy Savage), he gets a standing ovation from his church for his "repentance" while the victim looks on.  When a Baptist seminary head says women should put with abuse in a marriage, he gets free housing on campus for life.

I'm not sure why you think Mark hasn't had a chance to face his accusers - The ECC investigator has spoken with at least 4 of them.  Do you not think after speaking with each one, she then went and asked Mark D. for his perspective on each of their stories?

There's a lot of injustice in this world...you seem focused on a very small corner of it.

[JessicaNoelDarling]

For the past 4 months we’ve seen the impact of the #MeToo and #ChurchToo movement at work here on this forum. Some here would say that MD got exactly what he deserved with his reputation and credibility being decimated without having the opportunity to prove his innocence or even know the identity of his accusers. I am a male who tries to live a righteous life, but it seems it all could be taken away, just like that, with an unfounded accusation.

I hope that sharing this article opens some eyes to the danger of this movement. The ultimate harm it could do to The Church and fellow Brothers and Sisters in Christ is very real. The next one accused could be you, your husband, your son, your father, or son-in-law. 

http://www.qando.net/2018/01/11/the-digital-lynch-mob-of-the-metoo-movement/

"Elsewhere Roiphe was branded an ‘Uncle Tom’ of gender, ‘trash’, a ‘bitch’ of course, a ‘demon’, and a ‘danger’ to good feminists who simply want to keep criminalising men without the benefit of such archaic things as due process or legal investigation. And all of this came from women, from women who pose as pro-women. Writer Nicole Cliff even encouraged writers to pull their pieces from Harper’s and offered to pay them to do so – an explicit attempt to heap editorial pressure on Harper’s to pull Roiphe’s piece / silence the evil witch. Five writers pulled pieces from Harper’s. Self-censorship to the end of censoring a woman who disagrees with mainstream feminists – what a degraded spectacle."
 

Thank you for posting this.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Yes, this is a very good article. A digital lynch mob. Huh, who would have thought that?

[GodisFaithful]

This article has no relevancy if Mark Darling, as a married man, has done any of the stuff he has been accused of doing. The women coming forward are not anti-men and raging feminists. I think it is so silly to relate this article to what is going on at Evergreen Church with the accusations and investigation.

[Shamednomore]

False reporting of sex assault is less than 6% - same as other categories of crime.  Yet sex assault/abuse/misconduct victims are routinely met with character attacks and labeled liars.  When multiple victims accuse the same person, the percentage of them ALL being false is even lower.  The idea that we need to be worried about our husbands and sons is laughable.  That women using their voices and standing up for themselves are dangerous because they will accuse innocent men for attention.  I can't form words for how insulting that is.
At some point as the number of MD victims grows, it becomes silly to keep calling them all liars. 

[Rebel in a Good Way]

It's much more common that "it could all be taken away, just like that" when a predator/abuser violates someone else. 

It's telling that some of you prefer women and children continue to be victimized at astronomical rates rather than risk one man being falsely accused.  Even the ones who are blatantly guilty rarely face consequences for their actions. 

"Innocent until proven guilty" (which I support in a court of law) is based on Blackstone's formula "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."  Well, that sounds about right in our society, that we would allow 9 women/men/children to be abused rather than to risk 1 man. 

Yes, things may be rocky as society shifts away from blaming victims, shaming those who speak up, and automatically believing the powerful over the vulnerable.  Soon, by taking all allegations seriously, we will be able to much more easily determine those that aren't true.  We as a church could lead well in this area, except for the church is still putting those 10 guilty men who go free in leaderships positions... 

BTW, to head off ridiculous criticism, I am not a man hater.  I love men who are respectful and don't prey on other people and fortunately have many of them in my life.  I am not worried about my husbands or sons being falsely accused (and neither is my husband).

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Apparently one third of us disagree with you, while almost half acknowledge that this is a problem.
http://fortune.com/2018/04/04/fake-metoo-claims-pew-research/

Shamednomore says, "False reporting of sex assault is less than 6% - same as other categories of crime." But according to one study 1 out of 10 men claim to have been falsely accused.
http://www.saveservices.org/dv/falsely-accused/survey/

Godisfaithful says, "This article has no relevancy if Mark Darling, as a married man, has done any of the stuff he has been accused of doing."
What has he been accused of exactly? Asking inappropriate questions (again context is everything) and hugging. Wow, what a criminal.

[JessicaNoelDarling]

False reporting of sex assault is less than 6% - same as other categories of crime.  Yet sex assault/abuse/misconduct victims are routinely met with character attacks and labeled liars.  When multiple victims accuse the same person, the percentage of them ALL being false is even lower.  The idea that we need to be worried about our husbands and sons is laughable.  That women using their voices and standing up for themselves are dangerous because they will accuse innocent men for attention.  I can't form words for how insulting that is.
At some point as the number of MD victims grows, it becomes silly to keep calling them all liars.  

First of all people keep quoting this insipid 6% number. That number is for rape accusations! There are no studies for women falsely accusing men of being creeps or grooming them for half a dozen years without ever trying to have sex with them. That study is absolutely absurd and meaningless. Second, you talk about Suzanne and Natalie being up-standing citizens but you don't even know them! You  also don't even know our dad but automatically assume he's a sexual predator. You where your bias on your sleeve. Why should anyone listen to you? My guess is if the investigation doesn't support your position, you will plug you ears.

This quote from you makes no sense to me, "The idea that we need to be worried about our husbands and sons is laughable."  How can you even say that? What universe are you living in? We live in a time where anyone can post anything, anywhere on social media and it's immediately believed, with no questions asked and just like that someone's life is ruined and over as they know it. Online abuse is happening all the time all over the country. For instance, there is now legislation around cyber-bullying because it effects are so devastating. The metoo movement has now unfortunately crossed over into that same space where instead of outing an abuser, it's actually targeting innocent people through it's wild west lynching process– no trial, no judge, no jury, just swift punishment to whoever the mob deems it's target. What's happening right now is unprecedented so trying to compare the present to anything else is absolute nonsense.

Its actually quite funny to me that when I try and comment about who my father is no one trusts me, or believes me, because they just think i am trying so desperately to convince people he is innocent. I'm not. In reality, all I am doing is shedding light on the man I saw every single day of my life. There's not much that needs to be said for my dad's life since it's so self-evident to anyone who actually knows my father (and you do not). Not that you're interested, but I only ever observed a consistent upright God fearing man. Can every daughter say that about their father? No! They can't! And I've said this about my father before any of these baseless claims were made. I said it because it was so significant in my life and I meant it with a sincere heart. My feelings on this haven't changed. Also, if the findings of the investigation find my dad to be innocent, will you retract your last post here? Clearly that won't be the case.

[omelianchuk]

I am a big believer in due process and I think it the principle of "innocent until prove guilty" is fundamentally sound, and makes no moral sense to set aside even outside a court of law. That said, due process includes protections for plaintiffs to fairly make their case, meaning they should be free from retaliation, fear of reprisal, shaming, gas-lighting, etc. Subjecting plaintiffs to clear and compelling standards of evidence that must be furnished before punishment is meted out is no injustice to them; likewise, it is no injustice to the defendant to give a fair opportunity to the plaintiff to make her case. Our culture doesn't seem to understand this, because everything is reduced to a power-struggle where might makes right. But that is, of course, false and we all (should) know it.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Self-reports and an opinion survey. 

Apparently one third of us disagree with you, while almost half acknowledge that this is a problem.
http://fortune.com/2018/04/04/fake-metoo-claims-pew-research/

Shamednomore says, "False reporting of sex assault is less than 6% - same as other categories of crime." But according to one study 1 out of 10 men claim to have been falsely accused.
http://www.saveservices.org/dv/falsely-accused/survey/

Godisfaithful says, "This article has no relevancy if Mark Darling, as a married man, has done any of the stuff he has been accused of doing."
What has he been accused of exactly? Asking inappropriate questions (again context is everything) and hugging. Wow, what a criminal.

[Huldah]

I actually do know of one man (the father of someone I know) who was falsely accused of rape. I don't think a police report was ever filed, but he was emotionally devastated nonetheless. I can't prove the allegation was false, but there's little if any doubt in my mind that it was.

So, yes, I do think there's room to worry about my husband and son and other men I love.

But I also have several female friends who were raped, and one whose daughter was molested repeatedly by a relative. Only one of those perpetrators even went to trial. If that one rapist hadn't been accused by a number of victims, he might still be walking the streets. Oh, wait, he is walking the streets. He was sentenced to one year, total, for the forcible rapes of several teen-aged girls, one of whom became pregnant as a result. I assume the sentence involved some kind of plea deal. Still, that's more justice than 99.4% of rape victims ever see. RAINN estimates that out of a thousand rapes, only 57 rapists will ever be arrested, and only 6 of those will ever serve time. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system.

The odds of a guilty man getting away with rape scot-free are astronomically higher than the odds of an innocent man being accused.

[Linda]

This is huge coming from Albert Mohler. (Hopefully, he will rethink his view of the Sovereign Grace sexual abuse scandal.)

https://albertmohler.com/2018/05/23/wrath-god-poured-humiliation-southern-baptist-convention/

"But the same Bible that reveals the complementarian pattern of male leadership in the home and the church also reveals God’s steadfast and unyielding concern for the abused, the threatened, the suffering, and the fearful. There is no excuse whatsoever for abuse of any form, verbal, emotional, physical, spiritual or sexual. The Bible warns so clearly of those who would abuse power and weaponize authority. Every Christian church and every pastor and every church member must be ready to protect any of God’s children threatened by abuse and must hold every abuser fully accountable. The church and any institution or ministry serving the church must be ready to assure safety and support to any woman or child or vulnerable one threatened by abuse."

What happens when #metoo allegations are true. What should the church do? Here is what Mohler says.

"A church, denomination, or Christian ministry must look outside of itself when confronted with a pattern of mishandling such responsibilities, or merely of being charged with such a pattern. We cannot vindicate ourselves. That is the advice I have given consistently for many years. I now must make this judgment a matter of public commitment. I believe that any public accusation concerning such a pattern requires an independent, third-party investigation. In making this judgment, I make public what I want to be held to do should, God forbid, such a responsibility arise."

As most know, the Biblical standard for an elder is "above reproach".

"So an elder must be a man whose life is above reproach. He must be faithful to his wife. He must exercise self-control, live wisely, and have a good reputation. He must enjoy having guests in his home, and he must be able to teach." 1 Timothy 3:2

As I understand it, there are 9 women who have come forward alleging inappropriate conversation and contact with MD over a period of many years. Some of these women don't know each other. This is not about the "character" of the women. The only questions that matters is "Did something happen? If so, what?" and "Did elders know about it and cover it up?"

If any abuse happened, even to one woman, the Biblical mandate is clear. The pastor is no longer qualified because he is not above reproach. If any pastors covered this up, the mandate is equally clear. They are no longer qualified to be an elder because they have not protected their flock.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Don't say 9 unless you have some proof.

[DarthVader]

I am a big believer in due process and I think it the principle of "innocent until prove guilty" is fundamentally sound, and makes no moral sense to set aside even outside a court of law. That said, due process includes protections for plaintiffs to fairly make their case, meaning they should be free from retaliation, fear of reprisal, shaming, gas-lighting, etc. Subjecting plaintiffs to clear and compelling standards of evidence that must be furnished before punishment is meted out is no injustice to them; likewise, it is no injustice to the defendant to give a fair opportunity to the plaintiff to make her case. Our culture doesn't seem to understand this, because everything is reduced to a power-struggle where might makes right. But that is, of course, false and we all (should) know it.

Hey Adam - good post - thoughtful as always.  But another part of due process is the concept of an independent judiciary.  Hmm...

BOT Members
1) The Rock - appointed by the subject of the accusation, in active ministry partnership with the daughter and son-in-law of the subject.
2) Lakeville - appointed by another subject of the investigation after he knew he was a subject of the investigation (coverup)
3) Lynn and Jim - both normally work for the subjects of the investigation
4 Urban Refuge - no known conflict
5) New Hope - no known conflict
6) ECC - appointed by a subject of the investigation (coverup)

[Greentruth]

DV what’s your point your getting at other than the 100th time your opinion statement has bee posted? Anything new? Other than pure speculation in the worst form I have seen here, and that’s saying a lot. I don’t think you know these people, and I KNOW yougave no idea what or who or when any action will happen. Sorry man, but your just repeating what story hasbeen repeating over and over and over again.

I believe you to be a troll, as you attempt to get both sides of this issue worked up. I actually take very little into account what you say.

[Differentstrokes]

This is a new low for the ecc crew

[Greentruth]

This is a new low for the ecc crew

Low? Pointing out that DV plays both sides of the issue?  I could even assume it’s a concerted effort to manipulate those who would disagree with the forum norm. And by the way, I’m pro truth, pro justice and against manipulation from a form determined to take down a Church

[Rebel in a Good Way]

I'm posting in a hurry on this topic, which I shouldn't do because I would like to be more thoughtful.

But I agree, there does need to be some due process.  I wonder how it's possible in the meantime to assume that the man is innocent and the woman isn't lying.  (just using man/woman dynamic here even though that is not always the case).  I also don't think that churches should assume innocence if by not taking action means others could be harmed.  If a nursery worker is accused of molesting children, s/he should be moved to a position that doesn't involve children immediately.

I think how churches could handle allegations is to have a process and protocol in place.  Then they're not flubbing around, making mistakes, and caught off guard trying to make tough decisions.  They've already been able to think through things carefully and are proactive rather than reactive.  It would also be more timely for the alleged victim and the accused if the process existed rather than inventing it as they go.

Something like--Do the allegations of abuse involved a minor?  Do not pass go--involve the authorities.  Then support alleged victims and family. Are the allegations criminal in nature (i.e. domestic violence)?  Inform the victim of their ability to call the authorities and support them doing so if they choose.  Do not ask them to continue as a target.  Is the alleged abuse currently happening and is anyone's safety at risk?  Church takes action in their power to stop current abuse (by separating people or putting someone on a very temporary leave) and safety plan with victims using community resources as appropriate.  Let's say safety is not an issue but misconduct has been alleged--this should initiate a process the church has already set up where an outside party investigates.  I believe that the community of Rochester, MN has a "crisis intervention" team made up of trained individuals from multiple churches who come in to support congregations in crisis.  What if, a church faces an allegation against a pastor/leader, they are able to refer it to a group of Christian leaders who are trained in these issues? Or denominations each have their own teams and they utilize each other as necessary (Converge also has a crisis intervention team).

The problem is that currently, in our culture, abusers are generally rarely held accountable.

I am a big believer in due process and I think it the principle of "innocent until prove guilty" is fundamentally sound, and makes no moral sense to set aside even outside a court of law. That said, due process includes protections for plaintiffs to fairly make their case, meaning they should be free from retaliation, fear of reprisal, shaming, gas-lighting, etc. Subjecting plaintiffs to clear and compelling standards of evidence that must be furnished before punishment is meted out is no injustice to them; likewise, it is no injustice to the defendant to give a fair opportunity to the plaintiff to make her case. Our culture doesn't seem to understand this, because everything is reduced to a power-struggle where might makes right. But that is, of course, false and we all (should) know it.

[Godtrumpsall]

I am a big believer in due process and I think it the principle of "innocent until prove guilty" is fundamentally sound, and makes no moral sense to set aside even outside a court of law. That said, due process includes protections for plaintiffs to fairly make their case, meaning they should be free from retaliation, fear of reprisal, shaming, gas-lighting, etc. Subjecting plaintiffs to clear and compelling standards of evidence that must be furnished before punishment is meted out is no injustice to them; likewise, it is no injustice to the defendant to give a fair opportunity to the plaintiff to make her case. Our culture doesn't seem to understand this, because everything is reduced to a power-struggle where might makes right. But that is, of course, false and we all (should) know it.

Hey Adam - good post - thoughtful as always.  But another part of due process is the concept of an independent judiciary.  Hmm...

BOT Members
1) The Rock - appointed by the subject of the accusation, in active ministry partnership with the daughter and son-in-law of the subject.
2) Lakeville - appointed by another subject of the investigation after he knew he was a subject of the investigation (coverup)
3) Lynn and Jim - both normally work for the subjects of the investigation
4 Urban Refuge - no known conflict
5) New Hope - no known conflict
6) ECC - appointed by a subject of the investigation (coverup)

How can you be so sure of this when there are multiple pastors at each location?  I think Bloomington has at least 8, The Rock has 3.    Did you ask someone, or are you assuming?