Victim Intimidation

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.

[Watching]

Thank you, Rebel, STL, GodisFaithful.  I told Jeromy when I first began posting that he is acting scary.    Over the years I've heard Mark Darling talk openly about his temper, which is controlled only by the grace of God.  Jeromy is MD's son through and through.  Still scary.  A big reason I will not reveal my identity.  Thanks to all of you for your thoughtful posts.

[margaret]

Agree, Watching.  Thanks for posting.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

GodisFaithful, thanks for sharing those.  I only wrote about my own experiences (as a supporter) but if everyone's experience was on here it would be striking.

STL, I realize this is part of getting involved--but it makes me respect victims all the more for subjecting themselves to that (and sadly this isn't an isolated incident of victim experience).  Thanks for contacting the appropriate people, your voice in the "inside" (even if anonymous) is crucial. 

Sorry for what you went through RIGA..BTW, when Jeromy posted the whole "whips and violence" statement, it bothered me (a lot) so that night I sent a note to Lynn Newman (acting chair of the BOT) Karl Quickert (the most experienced remaining pastor at the Rock) and Joan Harris (ECC investigator) to complain (others may have as well).  He hasn't been active or logged on the forum since (but may be "lurking"). I'm not sure what, if any action was taken as I sent the note anonymously (for obvious reasons) and told them to keep me out of any follow up.

[Free in Christ]

I wanted to point out another broad result of this intimidation. It sends a loud message to those of us who have left other GCx churches to never speak openly about our negative experience with the movement. People complain that people on this forum are anonymous, and use this fact to discredit our experiences. Can you understand why so many of us are anonymous now? If we are anonymous, perhaps it has less to do with us (liars, delusional, etc.) and more to do with the treatment of others we have repeatedly witnessed.

[Peace]

I wanted to point out another broad result of this intimidation. It sends a loud message to those of us who have left other GCx churches to never speak openly about our negative experience with the movement. People complain that people on this forum are anonymous, and use this fact to discredit our experiences. Can you understand why so many of us are anonymous now? If we are anonymous, perhaps it has less to do with us (liars, delusional, etc.) and more to do with the treatment of others we have repeatedly witnessed.

I do understand now, Free in Christ. I am trying to understand.

For what it's worth, I fully disagree with the way Jeromy Darling has conducted himself on this forum and social media. I do not attend an ECC church, but I am currently involved in GCx. So Jeromy, if I have any more "sway" with you because I am involved in GCx, please stop. No one denies your love and loyalty to your dad, but your words have hurt. A world of good would come from you seeking the Lord, repenting of sin, asking for forgiveness from those you hurt and stepping away for awhile. No, I am not trying to silence you. I am actually trying to protect you from yourself because clearly, your emotions have gotten the best of you.
 

[Free in Christ]

Thanks, Peace. And I also recognize (and maybe should have pointed out) that there have also been voices of reason and kindness from current GC people as well, which I have really appreciated and been encouraged by. I have many close friends and family who are pastors or very involved in the group, and I know personally that they are wonderful, loving people, even with the systemic issues that I believe exist. I think that is a tension it is important to keep in mind.

[G_Prince]

Rebel, can you clarify about the list of people to sue? Where is this list?

Here's the list followed by the link. (G_Prince, would trolling online to find people who have posted statements on Twitter, Facebook, and Decomm, or shared Suzanne's post on Facebook for the purpose of compiling a "People to Sue" list be considered "doxxing", or is it just your "run of the mill" despicable intimidation?)

I have trolled this ordeal on line and many have posted statements of MD being a sexual abuser on Twitter, Facebook, and on De-Commission Forum.  Suzanne shares her statements with multiple people to post on their FB pages.  Others that could be pulled into the crosshairs if this does not play out as expected and defamation lawsuits are initiated would be these individuals that have shared sexual abuse statements on FB.
-   Linda Dugan
-   Terry Dugan
-   Chris Johnson (Go Fund Me for Mark Darling sexual abuse victims)
-   Barb Johnson
-   Tracy Nelson
-   Donna McBride
-   Lisa Skoglund
-   Ben Holmen
-   Megan Holmen
-   Jessi Irwin
-   Matthew Irwin
-   Heidi Van Dyck Anfinson
-   Jennifer Simpson
-   Ariana Van Dyck
-   Uncertain who is responsible for Forum postings
I would expect people would support a fundraising campaign to cover the cost for these suits or maybe a lawyer or two would come forward to provide their services.  Most of us expect or want him to be guilty, but I am starting to have some doubts.


http://forum.gcmwarning.com/general-discussion/what-if-mark-darling-is-found-to-not-be-a-sexual-abuser/msg15801/#msg15801

Yes this is the exact definition of doxxing. A shining example by Jeromy et al. What I think is most telling, however, is how he does it with no remorse as if it didn't directly contradict his "faith." It makes you wonder just how much "faith" he really has. Now, I don't practice any form of religion these days, so maybe my opinion does't count on here, but I still recall that there is a verse in Matthew 7:15–16 that I think directly applies to this situation:

"(15) Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. (16) You will know them by their fruits."

What kind of fruits has Jeromy shown? I think its pretty clear that he is not following the faith he professes, or worse he thinks he is somehow above it.

Maybe it's because he has the delusion that he is the victim and therefore anything is justified for self preservation. But it shows that he is willing to compromise his faith to protect his own ego.  

It's also a sign of an extremely unhealthy church. Think about  this: evergreen is defending a man who is now accused by nine different women of sexual abuse and is supporting his son who is stalking, doxxing, and harassing them. Why would anyone attend this church?  

[G_Prince]

So, the intimidation tactics of Jeromy and others on this forum were somewhat successful because they kept the number of women participating in the investigation to 5 instead of 7.  And those are the ones who contacted Suzanne, who knows if there are others.  They further silenced and instilled fear in people their church has already harmed. But now they have fewer people to try to discredit so win-win for them.

I ONLY know Jeromy from his online presence and because of what I've seen I have contacted some people just to see if they are taking any extra security measures.  He seems to only confirm this concern when he claims he will "violently" defend his father, talks about Jesus flipping tables, and then rather than clarify when given the chance, becomes outraged when people ask what someone with a black belt in karate means exactly with those statements.  I don't care how "loving" he might be in other contexts, what he has demonstrated online is inappropriate and cause for concern.  The pain of his family is no excuse.

I am not claiming to be a victim of Mark Darling.  I merely support the women who say they were and find their allegations credible.  I also think GCC has abusive churches and their system upholds that abuse.  That stance has earned me:

Jeromy Darling called my old GCC pastor and then PM'ed me to tell me that while that pastor "had every opportunity to disparage you" he didn't, and therefore  I OWE him an explanation as to why "I'm so angry with him."  So Jeromy called my old pastor for dirt and didn't get any--what would he have done had my old pastor lied and made stuff up?  What if I did have struggles from that time of my life I had shared with my old pastor and he would have felt justified passing that information on to another GCC good ol' boy?   Even though Jeromy didn't get dirt on me, he certainly wanted me to know that he called my old pastor and I was lucky that pastor didn't slam me.  I don't care what that pastor thinks of me and he should know my husband and I are no longer the people who won't stand up for ourselves or people we care about if we are slandered (slandered again, in the case of the people we care about).  But for some people, that would be enough to get them to back down.

Jeromy's friends on FB claimed they would make up fake FB accounts to go after Suzanne. One of them did so and came on my FB page and my husband's page, referencing my school and my husband's employment.  "I would think you would want to be very careful with the kind of career you have"  "What do your professors think of your online activity?"  At a different season in life, this could have been effective in silencing me.  Now, I told him to go ahead and call my professors because I know they're smart enough to recognize an unhealthy person.

Another of Jeromy's FB friends went on a family member's page and wrote false allegations against Suzanne.  Made post after post and comment after comment.  Seems unstable.  Mark's supporters encourage this, saying he was just making a point.  They are all deleted, but who goes to the page of someone they've never met and starts garbage like that?  Even if Mark was being falsely accused (which seems less likely by the day), why is this a normal thing to do?  This is not normal.  So when you're dealing with people who operate outside the boundaries of normal social contact, you could be intimidated in to silence.  You could think "I'm just going to take myself out of this because who wants to deal with these people?"

Multiple people told a man on FB that they could just make up allegations about him.  "Better yet, why don't I accuse you now of abuse and I'll start a movement to investigate your abusive behavior?" They also say they are "just making a point."  But when so many people do it, are they sending a message to intimidate?  Like "shut up or we'll do this to you?"  There are plenty of ways to make a point without suggesting such a horrible thing.

Jeromy revealed my identity on this forum even though I wished to remain anonymous to protect the victims of excommuniation and shunning that I am connected to.  He has written that he doesn't have to follow rules; he only answers "to God and God alone."  Is this not an attempt to intimidate--violate someone's boundaries because you are so darn important that you don't have to respect rules like everyone else?  That would leave victims and their supporters wondering what other rules he doesn't think he has to follow?  In what other ways will he violate boundaries?

And then there's the list of people to sue, which my name is on.  If someone does not understand how the law works (you cannot actually sue anyone for saying they believe someone), they could be intimidated in to silence because they don't have the financial resources, time, or emotional energy to invest in even a potential lawsuit.  Is there a legitimate reason for this list to exist other than to try to silence (potential) victims and their supporters?

To speak up, a woman would have to be at a place in her healing and life circumstances to be willing to deal with all of this junk.  She could be emotionally very healthy but have a new baby or be finishing up school or something from which she does not want to divert attention to be harassed.  So these tactics ARE effective in keeping women with stories silent.  And there is no reasonable or healthy reason that excuses any of these behaviors.  

I have discussed issues related to abuse and people in public pastoral ministry, but Jeromy and his supporters have made it personal.  And I've heard their excuses, like what is more personal than Jeromy's father being treated so "unfairly," which apparently that means Jeromy gets to do whatever he wants.  

And both GCC and ECC were aware of his antics from the beginning and by allowing him to continue (he is an employee) they are complicit.

Intimidation and bullying.  Plain and simple.  

Rebel. This is truly disgusting. Have you thought about getting a restraining order? I think you definitely have a case.

[Rypick]

Just for accuracy sake, here is the full text of the original post with "the list" (red was added by me):

Newbie on the forum-  Most of us have implied that MD is guilty.  What if there is no evidence to show that he is a sexual abuser (maybe they find that he had some short comings, but not a sexual abuser) who is held responsible? Multiple times it has been shared on the forum that defamation lawsuit could be a slam dunk if MD and/or EC decided to pursue this.  Suzanne would be in the crosshairs of such litigation. Am I correct that anyone else that has posted statements of MD being a sexual abuser online could also be looking at being held accountable as well? According to Jeromy there has been definite damage done to them during all of this.

I have trolled this ordeal on line and many have posted statements of MD being a sexual abuser on Twitter, Facebook, and on De-Commission Forum.  Suzanne shares her statements with multiple people to post on their FB pages.  Others that could be pulled into the crosshairs if this does not play out as expected and defamation lawsuits are initiated would be these individuals that have shared sexual abuse statements on FB.
-   Linda Dugan
-   Terry Dugan
-   Chris Johnson (Go Fund Me for Mark Darling sexual abuse victims)
-   Barb Johnson
-   Tracy Nelson
-   Donna McBride
-   Lisa Skoglund
-   Ben Holmen
-   Megan Holmen
-   Jessi Irwin
-   Matthew Irwin
-   Heidi Van Dyck Anfinson
-   Jennifer Simpson
-   Ariana Van Dyck
-   Uncertain who is responsible for Forum postings
I would expect people would support a fundraising campaign to cover the cost for these suits or maybe a lawyer or two would come forward to provide their services. Most of us expect or want him to be guilty, but I am starting to have some doubts.

I'm not so sure this shining example of doxxing can be attributed to "Jeromy et al."

[Linda]

Just for accuracy sake, here is the full text of the original post with "the list" (red was added by me):

Newbie on the forum-  Most of us have implied that MD is guilty.  What if there is no evidence to show that he is a sexual abuser (maybe they find that he had some short comings, but not a sexual abuser) who is held responsible? Multiple times it has been shared on the forum that defamation lawsuit could be a slam dunk if MD and/or EC decided to pursue this.  Suzanne would be in the crosshairs of such litigation. Am I correct that anyone else that has posted statements of MD being a sexual abuser online could also be looking at being held accountable as well? According to Jeromy there has been definite damage done to them during all of this.

I have trolled this ordeal on line and many have posted statements of MD being a sexual abuser on Twitter, Facebook, and on De-Commission Forum.  Suzanne shares her statements with multiple people to post on their FB pages.  Others that could be pulled into the crosshairs if this does not play out as expected and defamation lawsuits are initiated would be these individuals that have shared sexual abuse statements on FB.
-   Linda Dugan
-   Terry Dugan
-   Chris Johnson (Go Fund Me for Mark Darling sexual abuse victims)
-   Barb Johnson
-   Tracy Nelson
-   Donna McBride
-   Lisa Skoglund
-   Ben Holmen
-   Megan Holmen
-   Jessi Irwin
-   Matthew Irwin
-   Heidi Van Dyck Anfinson
-   Jennifer Simpson
-   Ariana Van Dyck
-   Uncertain who is responsible for Forum postings
I would expect people would support a fundraising campaign to cover the cost for these suits or maybe a lawyer or two would come forward to provide their services. Most of us expect or want him to be guilty, but I am starting to have some doubts.

I'm not so sure this shining example of doxxing can be attributed to "Jeromy et al."

I didn't edit to be deceptive, Rebel had mentioned the list and araignee19 asked about it, so I posted the part about the list and left off the intro of the newbie who started that thread, posted 3 times, and disappeared. As to your red letters, expecting someone to be guilty (because of the number of women claiming victimhood, because of things told us by the person in question, and by things we have heard and observed over the course of more than a dozen years) is one thing, WANTING someone to be guilty (to have sinned) is another. No one is hoping someone will have sinned. I guess we do hope that if sin is involved it will be exposed and repented of.

You added the intro "just for accuracy sake". Here it is.

"Newbie on the forum-  Most of us have implied that MD is guilty.  What if there is no evidence to show that he is a sexual abuser (maybe they find that he had some short comings, but not a sexual abuser) who is held responsible? Multiple times it has been shared on the forum that defamation lawsuit could be a slam dunk if MD and/or EC decided to pursue this.  Suzanne would be in the crosshairs of such litigation. Am I correct that anyone else that has posted statements of MD being a sexual abuser online could also be looking at being held accountable as well? According to Jeromy there has been definite damage done to them during all of this."

Since the topic of this thread is intimidation, what we have here is a threat against a woman claiming abuse by a pastor. Not only is it a form of intimidation, it uses the word "crosshairs" which has a violent connotation at worst and a "we will set our sites on you and get you for this" connotation at best, while distracting from the point which is: A woman who is fully aware that she could be sued if she is lying has boldly stated she was abused by a pastor and it was covered up by some pastors. There are 9 other people who have also claimed to have been abused. 5 of them have identified themselves to the investigator.

It is intimidation to hint at legal action to those alleging abuse, or to those who say they believe them.

[GodisFaithful]

Most of the people on both "sides" are saying that they want the whole truth to come out, not that we *want* Mark Darling to be guilty. He either is or isn't. We do not know who this newbie is who posted this. Yes, Linda, it looks to me it could be someone who is supporting Mark Darling by the way things are worded.

I was looking and could not find the list Jeromy posted. I saw a list of his on facebook that had more names, or at least some different names. I believe he compiled it from people on facebook that came forward believing and supporting the victims telling their story. I thought it was in the Reckoning but could not find it.

Perhaps someone is better at sleuthing than I am, but we know that Jeromy has behaved in a threatening way to many who have been supporters/believers of the accusers. Take for example that he was justified in fashioning a whip like Jesus did in the temple in order to defend his own father...

[Shamednomore]

Well, he has also edited certain things so perhaps it isn't there because he deleted it.  I am not positive what exactly has been edited or removed, but I know there are some things that are no longer out there.  Not sure if GC/ECC had a hand in that or if he did that on his own.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

I doubt it's at that level but if it became necessary, any one should.  Some of these quotes were in the middle of written communication, and although I've been accused of "pulling things out of context" by a few on this forum, that's the crux of subtle intimidation.  It "could" be read several ways, but for darn sure, one of those ways is threatening.  Then the people who say them can back out of it when confronted, but the doubt has already been cast.  When I called them on the mention of my professors, they responded with things like "I only asked about your professors because they must be knowledgeable about these things." Uh-huh.  There was nothing about the dialogue that demonstrated authentic interest in outside expertise and I hadn't even mentioned having professors.  But it's that subtle twisting that still sends a message. 

Rebel. This is truly disgusting. Have you thought about getting a restraining order? I think you definitely have a case.

[G_Prince]

I doubt it's at that level but if it became necessary, any one should.  Some of these quotes were in the middle of written communication, and although I've been accused of "pulling things out of context" by a few on this forum, that's the crux of subtle intimidation.  It "could" be read several ways, but for darn sure, one of those ways is threatening.  Then the people who say them can back out of it when confronted, but the doubt has already been cast.  When I called them on the mention of my professors, they responded with things like "I only asked about your professors because they must be knowledgeable about these things." Uh-huh.  There was nothing about the dialogue that demonstrated authentic interest in outside expertise and I hadn't even mentioned having professors.  But it's that subtle twisting that still sends a message.  

That's a spot-on analysis of these tactics. Veiled threats, subtle intimidation, sowing discord with friends and family. It really is just an extension of the abuse they practice in-house to collect and control members...only practiced in reverse.

[HughHoney]

It's also a sign of an extremely unhealthy church. Think about  this: evergreen is defending a man who is now accused by nine different women of sexual abuse and is supporting his son who is stalking, doxxing, and harassing them. Why would anyone attend this church?  

Get outta there!

[AgathaL'Orange]

It's also a sign of an extremely unhealthy church. Think about  this: evergreen is defending a man who is now accused by nine different women of sexual abuse and is supporting his son who is stalking, doxxing, and harassing them. Why would anyone attend this church?  

Get outta there!

And get into a church that is under authority, whether from the congregation or a larger denominational body.  Checks and balances matter!  

Leaders need to answer to more than God and the methodology for oversight should be pretty transparent.  

[XianJaneway]

My daughter asked me to clarify what "authority" actually meant once.

I prayed about this, and was finally able to answer her well: "People like police officers and healthcare workers and teachers and firefighters have a duty to protect you, provide a service, and keep you from harming yourself and others. If they *don't* fulfill the functions of their job, or if they harm you, or if they allow you to harm others, there are consequences for their actions. They could lose their job, lose their license, or even go to jail. You will also face consequences for not following them, unless you have a just cause for disobeying."

The thing about "spiritual authority" is that the people under this authority *rarely* get any protection or benefit, and there are no consequences for the leader who abuses this authority. The only consequences are in heaven, where God forgives us. So....many church people don't even feel the need to expose wrongdoing sometimes, because "God will make all things right" in the end.   

We have to do better, church.