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.

[Greentruth]

Rebel, the constant attempt at lumping MD into something he is not even accused off is very telling of the desperation you and others are demonstrating here. It is very telling and not helping scout at all. If we are going to have an undeniable result from this, the intimidating allegations need stop. You seem to have a higher degree of resolve to see this turn out the way you have painted it, which means your probably more afraid of looking the fool than you are for truth to be told. Sorry, but to me that is evident.

[omelianchuk]

I wonder how it's possible in the meantime to assume that the man is innocent and the woman isn't lying.  

I would say it would not be possible to do that and be just, because that is not due process. That would be an unwarranted and unjust assumption and unfair to the accuser. Due process doesn't assume the accused is innocent and the accuser is a liar, but rather that the accused does not have to make the case that s/he is innocent. That's the job of the plaintiff. A fair opportunity to do that, depending on the seriousness of the charges, would include removing the accused from the appropriate contexts, investigating the charges, and determining whether or not the accused is guilty of the charges.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that churches need a game plan in place on how to do this that fully comports with the law and is as fair as possible. Holding abusers accountable is very hard in this culture, in every culture it seems, but that does seem to be changing. But I would hope this positive change doesn't erode basic standards of fairness. Letting the guilty go free is a travesty, for sure, but punishing the innocent is a greater one. The outcomes for victims are terrible because of this set up, I realize. But we don't structure our society entirely on producing the best outcomes; rather, we (should) structure it according to what is just. Otherwise, the old thought experiment about whether to lynch the one innocent man in order to save the townspeople from a rampaging mob (which would be placated) doesn't have an obvious answer.

[Roger Dodger]

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.

If I remember correctly Suzanne's initial tweet was tied to the #MeToo movement and she filled out the form stating MD to be a CHILD sexual abuser to be a source of EMPOWERMENT. Yes, she redacted her claim after the pressures of her peers to do so. 

[Linda]

Don't say 9 unless you have some proof.

When you say proof, what are you asking for?

My comment was that as of now, my understanding is that 9 women have come forward to Suzanne. Suzanne reported 7. Then she said 2 more came forward after the report.  Some are willing to tell their stories, some choose not to.

We are all aware of 5.

-Suzanne
-Natalie
-Loey
-Victim A
-Victim C

Victim A spoke with Lyden, but chose to not go on camera.

I assume you all must think that these women are all making up their stories and that is why you (and your friends) always have an answer (it was a keychain, Suzanne may be a criminal, prove that there are 9, they were at the park, but there were people nearby, it was just a hug at karate class, etc.) and you never, to my knowledge, have expressed any sympathy toward the women. What if their stories are true?

[Roger Dodger]

My wife and I have several of our own daughters and part of the reason I posted this article was due to our discussion the other night.  We honestly fear that over the next several years if this current trend continues, there will be no opportunity for men to mentor or build into our daughters lives.  Not because my daughters don't welcome it, but because men will become so sheepish around females and will avoid them all together.  

I stated "Nice work Sweetheart" the other day to a teenager who had just met one of her goals in life.  Within moments I became paniced over using the term Sweetheart and felt the need to track down the girl and her mother to clarify the term Sweetheart- but they had already gone home.  I have worked with teens for the past 20 years and never felt trepidation over the use of a word such as Sweetheart.

[Linda]

So, Roger, are you saying that all claims of abuse are invalid?

It’s inappropriate for many reasons to call someone “sweetheart” who isn’t your wife or daughter. Good idea to think twice about that.

[JessicaNoelDarling]

So, Roger, are you saying that all claims of abuse are invalid?

It’s inappropriate for many reasons to call someone “sweetheart” who isn’t your wife or daughter. Good idea to think twice about that.

I think this is one of your silliest comments you have to date. Sweetheart....

[Roger Dodger]

It depends on the context, I would have no issues with a coach or a teacher coming up to my daughter and saying "great job on your test Sweetheart."  There is a degree of context that comes into play.  Linda you confirmed my fear of where we are heading as a society.

I am not sure where I was implying that all claims of abuse are invalid. I guess I will sleep on that claim tonight.

[Linda]

Roger,

Just curious. What is your response to the Mohler article on #metoo in the church?

[Al]

So, Roger, are you saying that all claims of abuse are invalid?

It’s inappropriate for many reasons to call someone “sweetheart” who isn’t your wife or daughter. Good idea to think twice about that.

This baffles me. I have a daughter and if I saw a coach encourage my daughter and use the word "sweetheart", it would make my heart melt. Context of course matters, but you know this Linda. We need more caring people in the world, not less. We shouldn't water down our sincere care for others because of some invisible societal standard which aims to not offend anyone...and when does that end? "Sweetheart" in this context is an OK thing to say, in my opinion, especially if you're just trying to encourage others in sincerity and love. Good people offend bad people all of the time. Let's not stop doing good because of it.

[Linda]

Would still love to hear what people think about this article.

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

[Badger]

So who can I call "sweetheart," "darling," "honey" to?  How old is it okay to call a girl or woman that?  Would it be okay if another man called your wife darling, sweetheart, honey?  Why or why not?

If it is not okay in our society for men to refer to women other than their wives and loved ones in this way, why would you want to have other men using these terms with your daughter?  Are there not other ways to show girls and young women they have value without language that reinforces stereotypes, focuses on outward appearances, and creates power differentials?  If ECC pastors have been leading by example in this area, perhaps this is another issue that Evergreen needs to address.

[Greentruth]

It is this perceived gray area that is at the root of many accusations I believe. Loving people speak in a loving manner. It is sad to see our society turned into snow flakes. And to a fault will give actual offenders cover. Have seen this several times. Your only considered safe if you walk and talk only the way of directed.

[Al]

I'm now beginning to understand the term snowflake better than ever. Instead of teaching people to listen and understand what is actually being communicated, we teach them to be offended first if they hear one of a collection of signal words that someone deemed offensive in and of themselves. Many words in the english language depend 100% on the context they are used to gain their intended meaning which is why it's extremely important we don't teach people to get offended when they hear a word they don't like. This type of attitude erodes away at normal human interaction and healthy communication because we teach people to turn of their ability to communicate and rather get offended first. This is dangerous. From my perspective "sweetheart" doesn't reinforces stereotypes, focus on outward appearances, or create power differentials. Not sure how a good thing became an offensive thing. Ironically, many people who choose to be offended ARE the people who are creating power differentials. That is the whole reason they get offended outwardly.

[Greentruth]

Al, exactly. My experince goes back to Shem my moms husband after our father died, and at family get together my brothers wife made a big deal out of him being loving to their daughter. I knew this man my whole life, worked with him. Simply a loving man to all. We had to tell my mom he had to back off or my brothers wife would not attend family functions with their daughter. It destroyed this man and my mom. One of the few times I saw my mom cry so hard. Her husband would sit by himself detached and broke my heart, and I know my moms as she started drinking heavy after that. She died at 68, cause of death alcoholism and I’m sure a broken heart. This pretty much caused my brother and his wife to divorce. One of the biggest reasonsI question when someone makes allegations.

[OneOfMany]

I agree about not allowing benign words to becoming triggering. As I have traveled I have noticed that the frequency of use as well as specific meaning can vary greatly by region with certain words and phrases.

[Al]

Yes. Communication is extremely important and it even comes into play when you're dealing with generational differences among people from the same region or country. Words are used in different aways across generational gaps.

[omelianchuk]

Words like "sweetheart," "baby," and "honey" are regularly deployed here down South (I am thinking of the woman who makes my sandwiches at the sub shop). I must admit, I find it rather charming (originally from Minnesota)! The unintended consequence of the #MeToo movement--which is in turned caused by abusers (let us be clear)--may be that common acts of affection (Lewis calls it storge in The Four Loves) become interpreted in some weird Freudian manner, that they really aren't about displaying an innocent warmth or goodwill, but rather are about some repressed guilty sexual compulsion that seeks to dominate the other. Hence, the sort of worries Rodger is expressing are a result of the erosion of this familiar social lubricant, that admittedly, is abused by abusers.

[Linda]

I regret that my comment complimenting Roger Dodger for being thoughtful to not offend when he speaks to girls and women has changed the subject of this discussion.

There are dozens of reasons to not use the words "sweetheart" or "hun" (unless you are a waitress in a 1980's sit-com). Here are a couple. Culturally, it is offensive to many 20 and 30-somethings. It is a kindness to not offend. It is also a term of endearment people use toward their spouses/girlfriend. I would not want my husband calling other women "Sweetheart" because that word could be misinterpreted by the person being called "Sweetheart".

That said, of course, the context and the person matter. Also, I know that millennial's are able to give a break to an older person, understanding they don't mean to offend. And I know in the South they use words like "hun" all the time. But, if you don't live in the South, and do live in a rather liberal, cosmopolitan city like Minneapolis, and you don't want to offend, you might not want to use those terms.

As a woman, I would much rather hear, "You have worked so hard to learn how to play the violin and that sounded lovely," as opposed to, "Good job, Sweetheart," because the compliment is specific regarding the skill and hard work involved. It is more meaningful.

But back to the topic of this thread.

The article that was linked at the beginning.

That article was referring to the idea that everything is #metoo now. Or, it was suggesting that is where the #metoo thing is leading. For example, calling someone "Sweetheart" is (more often than not) NOT a #metoo thing. It could be (if the person was groping when he said it), but calling it #metoo harassment in the cases where all someone did was use the word "Sweetheart" diminishes the seriousness of #metoo charges. So, in that sense, I would agree with the article.

The problem is, there are legitimate #metoo charges and some of them have been happening in churches. Hence, #churchtoo Thinking not just about ECC/GCC here, but also Willow Creek, the SBC, etc.

This past week, Albert Mohler wrote an article about #metoo in the church. It is very sobering and has resonated with many. I would like to know what people think about it. I think it is an excellent and sobering counter to the originally posted article in this thread.

Again, here is the link.

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

[OneOfMany]

The problem is, there are legitimate #metoo charges and some of them have been happening in churches. Hence, #churchtoo Thinking not just about ECC/GCC here, but also Willow Creek, the SBC, etc.

This past week, Albert Mohler wrote an article about #metoo in the church. It is very sobering and has resonated with many. I would like to know what people think about it. I think it is an excellent and sobering counter to the originally posted article in this thread.

Again, here is the link.

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

As I read this article and the author was trying to figure out why the conservative church has a problem with abusive leaders my mind went back to the top 10 careers sociopaths/psychopaths choose. Pastor/Priest/Minister is in the top 10. I don't know if the problem is more prevalent in conservative churches or not. I think the church needs to acknowledge that the very nature of being a church leader (power, influence, people trusting without knowing the pastor personally, the belief held by most that those who choose church leadership are benevolent people, access to personal lives, etc) attracts those who would abuse. Therefore maybe it would be prudent for churches to set in place ways to screen out those prone to abusive behavior. Not sure what that would be. Would church leaders need to pass a psychological test? That would do an injustice to those with psychopathic personalities who choose not to cross unhealthy or illegal boundaries. Because in the end it does come down to making a choice not to harm others. However maybe such a screening is in order given the great potential in church leadership positions to cause grievous harm to those they minister to.