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.
De-Commissioned Forum
November 30, 2022, 06:28:23 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What if MD is found to NOT be....  (Read 151633 times)
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #120 on: March 26, 2018, 05:11:19 pm »

Wow, Jeromy, I struggle with words to fully explain your response.  If I had to go with one, I think "impressive" is probably the one.  I'll try to follow you point by point:
I can't tell if you're mocking me here or not.

"I may not know all of them, but I know about 100x more than you do, and they all know who I am. They know my work for the Gospel and my reputation, and the consensus from all the emails, phone calls, texts and facebook messages I've received since this all went down is that an overwhelming majority find this so disgustingly false, they've not even bothered paying attention to any of it."
OK, so I think your argument here is that you're more popular within the church than me, specifically 100X more popular.  I would probably agree, and I think that's great.  GOOD FOR YOU! 
Definitely sure you're mocking me at this point.

"I came on here to take my dad OUT of the pot he's being boiled alive in. You came on here to echo what every regularly on this site already stated - "we believe everything Suzanne is saying and need no proof whatsoever". How in the world would it help ANYONE on this website to come on here, anonymously claim to be a current member of our church, then proceed to say you also believe everything a woman you've never met is posting on the internet? That's the very definition of stirring the pot and helps exactly no one."
For the record, I have been in contact with many people within our church related to this subject.  This is not something where I'm just "believing everything a women I've never met is posting".  I know many of the key parties.  I have talked to many people from within our church, certain pastors,  people who I was close to back in my Rock days, and the reasons I've come to the conclusions I've come to is based on all of these conversations, not just reading accounts online from people I don't know.  So our conclusions were reached in a similar process, by trusting those around us.  Yes, we've come to different conclusions, but we both have tried to best understand the facts as they've been presented.  Could either or both of us be wrong, sure, I freely admit that, which is why I laid out my three scenarios.
I'm sorry, you've talked to pastors at Evergreen at the Rock that believe any of this? Is that what you're trying to tell me here? Cause that would be the nail in the coffin of everything you've said so far. And how could both of us be wrong? He either did it (demonstrably false) or didn't do it (easily provable). What's the other option?

"Let me get this straight: you come on here, anonymously, claiming to believe, UNEQUIVOCALLY, that my father is a liar, philanderer, and perverted sexual deviant and that my mother is an idiot or enables him, then turn around and tell me you'll apologize publicly if you're wrong? That's a little like saying "I know the sun will rise tomorrow, but if it doesn't I'll eat my shorts". This may be one of the most offensive things ever written to my family on this forum and is completely and utterly hollow."
This strikes me as the most odd.  Following up my above statement where I state that either or both of us could be wrong with our conclusions.  In that vane, I state that if my conclusions are wrong, I would personally apologize to you and your siblings.  For some reason you've taken my willingness to apologize if I'm proven wrong to be "one of the most offensive things ever written to my family".  OK, that's not my typical response around someone saying they'd be willing to admit they're wrong and personally apologize.  But maybe we just see the world differently.
I'm sorry, the FIRST thing on your list was this: "I believe that scout was a victim of multiple forms of abuse by her pastor Mark Darling, including emotional abuse, psychological abuse, abuse of power." So let me re-phrase it for you "I believe that Mark Darling is a perverted, lying, sex-hungry, serial philanderer and that his wife is too dumb to know or knows and doesn't care. I believe everything about his life and his children's life has been a facade. BUT, if I'm wrong, I will apologize". You don't see how incredibly offensive and disgusting and two-faced that is? My dad's either the greatest man I know, or the greatest liar I know. The man described in Suzanne's disgusting letter (and the fake letters that follow) could not co-exist with the godly, gospel-machine and loving father that I grew up with.

"Here I can happily state that once the investigator reviews everything I already posted in my letter about the man I lived with for 21 years, there will be no discipline. Since you apparently skimmed over my letter, maybe you should go back and pick through it with a fine toothed comb."
OK, I guess i was unaware that the investigation was complete and you were acting as judge and jury, thus enabling you to say "there will be no discipline", but the reality is you don't know that, I don't know that, that's why there's an investigation.  So I give the question back to you.  I admit that you believe it to be highly unlikely, but I'm interested in your thoughts on how you'd respond, since you didn't answer that the first time.
The ONLY reason there's an investigation is because the church was implicated in covering it up and has a duty to the public to prove that nothing happened and they did not cover it up. I don't need a third party attorney to investigate my father to prove that my ENTIRE CHILDHOOD wasn't a lie. So I'll answer your question with a question: What would you do if you found we're all in the matrix and living as computer generated apparitions? Let me re-phrase that - what is the point of entertaining an impossibility? You're asking me to imagine that my entire life, my entire childhood, my whole existence, everything I know to be true was a lie and pretend for a moment that my dad is a disgusting womanizing pig and that my mother is an idiot, and you think I should just play along and entertain that and not be incredibly offended, when I'm already in the greatest trial of my life? This alone shows your true colors and your complete and total lack of empathy for anyone is a situation like this. What would my answer prove to you or anyone on this board? That I can imagine unimaginable horrors and play a game with an anonymous internet poster?

"Since you're new here, you probably missed this: all 3 of these women claimed to have spent HOURS alone or on the phone with my dad over the exact same period of time (and often apparently in my bedroom or Micah's). Meaning my dad must have superpowers. 1 alone would have been caught by my mother within a few weeks. 3 is basically next to impossible and 7 women would have required him to never sleep (or even really ever be home for that matter). Since Suzanne's story completely fell apart (READ MY LETTER AGAIN) and these other victims are doing something NO OTHER #METOO VICTIM HAS DONE TO DATE by not posting their own stories about the "lurid conversations" they had with my dad, anyone that does NOT have a personal vendetta against my father has already checked out of this story - cause victims of REAL sex crimes have been bravely coming forward, publicly, with proof, to out their abuser. This whole time everyone's been talking about "power differential" - well who has the power now? A woman can scribble something on a bathroom wall and completely ruin a mans life. That's a power my father has NEVER known."
I'm going to just say this, because you keep accusing me and others of not reading your letter.  I did read you letter.  I didn't skim it, I actually read it twice, though I didn't listen to the self-promoting music selection you requested me to listen to while reading it, so maybe I didn't get the FULL picture, because I left that part out.  I get that you believe from what you stated in you opus that you don't believe any of this could have happened, I get that you think the events of 3 or 7 women couldn't happen at the same time. I don't get why they would have be be at the same time.  From the time your parents moved up to Minnesota and started ECC to when this story broke this January is 30+ years.  I understand from Scouts context, hers happened prior to 2001, but that still leaves a window of 12-15 years when it could happen.  I don't think the other accounts lay out clearly the timing, so they certainly could have been sequential, not at the same time.  Also, it seems to be a known fact that your father has counselled many women over the years.  Is it impossible from a small subset of those to have drifted a little further than counselling to what these accounts describe, and that Mark could have kept that from his wife and children.  Perhaps unlikely, but I think the world would tell us from how many times it happens that it's possible.  So again, i'll ask, since you didn't respond to my original question.  How would you respond if any of these other women came forward and gave up there anonymity?  What if you know them personally?  Would you respect their right to give their account, or would you attack their character and their credibility like you have done to Scout?  I understand you think this is EXTREMELY unlikely, but I would like your thoughts on this subject, as well as the thoughts of any of your "followers".

I already laid that question to rest, but you made a very important point: NONE OF THE ACCUSERS HAVE GIVEN ANY DATES. Suzanne even gives hazy dates. That doesn't tell you something? What i can tell you is that they're ALL claiming this happened during Evergreen years, pre-1999 and went on for many years - leaving a much smaller time-frame than the 30+ years you imagined. So somehow my dad apparently was able to maintain multiple relationships, then tame an insatiable appetite for listening to woman talk about sex (and never actually making any moves on them), and just stop this behavior as soon as the Rock started? When you can state so confidently you believe these things, unequivocally, you join the likes of users like "Neville Longbottom" at the bottom of the barrel.
Logged
omelianchuk
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 77



« Reply #121 on: March 26, 2018, 06:04:35 pm »

What's interesting, Jeromy, is that your father allegedly had a thing for vulnerable college girls pre-1999, started the Rock, where there were loads of pretty, vulnerable college-aged girls ready to be exploited (no red flags there!), and all he did was minister to them faithfully as any competent pastor would. Kind of odd that a compulsive weirdo, boner-hugger would suddenly change his ways, and, I don't know, become admirable to many? But whatever.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 06:08:20 pm by omelianchuk » Logged
jeromydaviddarling
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 178



« Reply #122 on: March 26, 2018, 06:26:02 pm »

What's interesting, Jeromy, is that your father allegedly had a thing for vulnerable college girls pre-1999, started the Rock, where there were loads of pretty, vulnerable college-aged girls ready to be exploited (no red flags there!), and all he did was minister to them faithfully as any competent pastor would. Kind of odd that a compulsive weirdo, boner-hugger would suddenly change his ways, and, I don't know, become admirable to many? But whatever.

Oh man. You're right. In all my "mindless ranting" I missed this important point...thanks for bringing a little laughter to my day.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 07:59:44 pm by jeromydaviddarling » Logged
GodisFaithful
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



« Reply #123 on: March 26, 2018, 07:07:02 pm »

Mindless ranting...
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2510



« Reply #124 on: March 27, 2018, 11:10:00 am »

Quote from: jeromydaviddarling
As slanderous as many of your posts are...

Slander = a false and defamatory oral statement about a person

Libel = a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation

Since you have stated publicly that many of my posts are "slanderous", what false statements are you referring to?

Quote from: jeromydaviddarling
...you've had the courage to stand by your own name knowing I could go to any pastor and ask about any scenario you've written to get their side of the story

The irony here is that my critique of GCC/ECC theology is public. The elders know who I am and what I think because I have written it down. When you go to a pastor and ask them about a "scenario", it is done in the dark. I have no idea what they have said about me. They could have implied that I am crazy, bitter, have some "issues" that they can't talk about because of privacy concerns, have a troubled marriage, have some hidden sin, anything. No, Jeromy, you did not get the "other side", you got the spin.

Quote
The implication you're making is that some people aren't showing their names because they think my dad will what - show up at their door with a gun? Sue them? Threaten and harass them? I can easily rule ALL those things out as reasons people aren't posting their real names.
As far as the staying anonymous to protect something is concerned, I hadn't actually thought about the anonymous person wanting to protect themselves. I thought about the anonymous person wanting to protect a relationship with a current GCC/ECC member. What if a spouse, or child, sibling, or parent had concerns about the group. A person might want to stay anonymous to bring light to the situation, but not embarrassment to someone they loved who was still in the group. With some high control groups like Scientology, disagreeing with the group leads to the break up of the family.


That said, I do find it troubling that in recent weeks, some people (specifically Digital Lynch Mob and Godtrumpsall) have posted that they know me. I'm pretty sure I know who they are, and that they are harmless, but it is disturbing when someone disagrees with you and at the same time implies that they know where you live.

So, stay anonymous, people.

Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Godtrumpsall
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142



« Reply #125 on: March 27, 2018, 11:28:28 am »

Quote from: jeromydaviddarling
As slanderous as many of your posts are...

Slander = a false and defamatory oral statement about a person

Libel = a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation

Since you have stated publicly that many of my posts are "slanderous", what false statements are you referring to?

Quote from: jeromydaviddarling
...you've had the courage to stand by your own name knowing I could go to any pastor and ask about any scenario you've written to get their side of the story

The irony here is that my critique of GCC/ECC theology is public. The elders know who I am and what I think because I have written it down. When you go to a pastor and ask them about a "scenario", it is done in the dark. I have no idea what they have said about me. They could have implied that I am crazy, bitter, have some "issues" that they can't talk about because of privacy concerns, have a troubled marriage, have some hidden sin, anything. No, Jeromy, you did not get the "other side", you got the spin.

Quote
The implication you're making is that some people aren't showing their names because they think my dad will what - show up at their door with a gun? Sue them? Threaten and harass them? I can easily rule ALL those things out as reasons people aren't posting their real names.
As far as the staying anonymous to protect something is concerned, I hadn't actually thought about the anonymous person wanting to protect themselves. I thought about the anonymous person wanting to protect a relationship with a current GCC/ECC member. What if a spouse, or child, sibling, or parent had concerns about the group. A person might want to stay anonymous to bring light to the situation, but not embarrassment to someone they loved who was still in the group. With some high control groups like Scientology, disagreeing with the group leads to the break up of the family.


That said, I do find it troubling that in recent weeks, some people (specifically Digital Lynch Mob and Godtrumpsall) have posted that they know me. I'm pretty sure I know who they are, and that they are harmless, but it is disturbing when someone disagrees with you and at the same time implies that they know where you live.

So, stay anonymous, people.



Linda
I have never stated that I know who you are.  I know your name because you use it here, but I have no idea who you are and I believe our paths never crossed.  Just wanted to clarify. 
Logged
AgathaL'Orange
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1182



« Reply #126 on: March 27, 2018, 11:42:13 am »

Anonymous leaders and investigators?  

That's just weird.  It's not like it's a mob investigation with witness protection or protection from jury tampering.  There's no reason for an investigative board to be anonymous.  For goodness sakes, it could be anyone?  

The secrecy is just so strange and really makes GCx look even more kooky than ever.  If the board is listed or public, please correct me.  This is so strange.  I've never been in any church that did anything even remotely like this.

If witnesses don't want to announce themselves publicly that's one thing.  The invesigators and decision makers.  No.  Weird.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 11:46:13 am by AgathaL'Orange » Logged

Glad to be free.
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2510



« Reply #127 on: March 27, 2018, 12:02:06 pm »

GTA, I guess I thought you knew me by some of the things you have said in your first post. Perhaps you just passed along info you learned from others.

DLM does know us. We do not know who DLM is.

Quote from: GTA
so you feel anonymity is important for this site, but you don't feel this is important in the matter of a independent 3rd party investigation?  You request that the investigation remain fully transparent, so then those that wish to come forward but want to maintain anonymity should not have that ability in this investigation?  What if there are people that wish to come forward, but want to not risk damaging any current relationships they may have with either current or past member, family members, etc?Huh?

An investigation of this nature is an entirely different deal than debating theology on a public forum.

The investigation should be transparent.

Victims identities can be protected, but those investigating and those deciding should be known to all.

People should know who is doing the investigating.

People should know who hired the investigator.

People should know who the investigator answers to.

People should know who is making final decisions about the allegations.

There should be no relationship (i.e. client attorney privilege) between any of the people being investigated.

As far as I know, the people making the claims are pretty much out of the loop.

They seem to have learned that a decision of some type will be made tonight by some people. They have no idea who these people are. The members of ECC don't even know who is on their board! This is not normal.

Does the BOT of ECC have any authority? Say, for example, tonight they decide that their has been abuse and a cover up. Does the BOT have any authority to remove elders? Or, would that authority fall upon the elders who make up the executive board. In which case, if it was found they had covered up something, they would have to remove themselves. The entire things is ridiculous.

As it stands right now. Some nameless people will be reviewing some information given to them by a business law attorney they hired to investigate claims made by people who were not employees and this board will be controlling who sees that information. They may or may not pass that information on to Suzanne and the victims. I'm pretty sure they will pass that information on to the executive board of ECC who appointed them to their positions on the BOT. No one knows who has the authority to make any decisions regarding consequences, should there be a need for that. It's a mess.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2018, 01:18:59 pm by Linda » Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2510



« Reply #128 on: March 27, 2018, 12:30:26 pm »

Iím just saying that if ECC is claiming there is an independent investigation they minimally should inform the alleged victims who the people are that will be reviewing the results of the investigation.

The fact that the names of those on the board has not been revealed to all involved indicates that Suzanne and the others making the allegations are outside the loop. Therefore, the investigation has an inherent bias.


ECC people in the loop + Those alleging abuse outside the loop = NOT independent investigation
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2510



« Reply #129 on: March 27, 2018, 12:45:28 pm »

Quote
Also where are you getting information that something is happening tonight?  I am confused.   When Mark's own kids don't know where the investigation is at, or what is happening next and are completely in the dark, how is it that you would know this or any information? This investigation is independent. 

Because current member Darth Vader mentioned it in a post.

Weíre you aware of the meeting? Weíre all ECC members informed of the meeting? Was Suzanne informed of the meeting?
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Boggs
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« Reply #130 on: March 27, 2018, 12:55:29 pm »

Again, I come back to the point that many on this forum believe any and all leaders within GCC are corrupt, all of them, and are not capable of being ethical or are able to act in line with scripture.  I have posed the question several times and everyone on this forum ignores the question.   Here is the question; do you wholeheartedly believe that the entire leadership and any and all persons that are brought into leadership, including the BOT are corrupt and incapable of ethical decisions or actions?

GTA - I think this is a really interesting question. I don't "wholeheartedly believe the entire leadership and any and all person that are brought into leadership, including the BOT are corrupt and incapable of ethical decisions or actions" but I do have to stake out a middle ground between that statement and the position I think you have.

I think there are a lot of good, ethical people in GC churches, like there are everywhere. I think the ECC board is probably full of reliable and trustworthy people. They are probably earnest and well intentioned.

I think they are put in a very difficult position. They are (probably?) chosen by the pastors, and now will be asked to pass judgement on one of the most prominent pastors in the entire movement. A pastor who quite possibly "saved them" or "brought them to Christ". And their normal job is financial oversight? That is a very tall order. I wouldn't say they are corrupt, but I think they are under a great deal of pressure in a way they're not prepared to handle.

Honestly the structure of the whole church is not set up to support a robust investigation. The power lies with the core group of pastors (particularly the most senior pastors), not with the board. But in this case they're forced to recuse themselves leaving a vacuum behind. Ideally there'd be a level of church governance above them. Or a congregation to demand transparent investigation so a decision could be made by all. What you have now is weird web of pastors accountable to pastors, and board members appointed by pastors, but pastors not accountable to board members (in ordinary circumstances). It's not a system I'd want to stake my church's reputation on.

A few notes.
1. My current church doesn't do this much better (planted by the current lead pastor, and a board selected by the pastor but voted on by the members of the congregation) and that's concerning to me. I've thought about church governance more in the last 2 months than ever before.
2. I just wrapped up 6 years on a non-profit board, 4 years as the president. We just revised our bylaws to clarify the relationship between the board of directors and the executive director. In our case, the current director has served for 35 years and started the non-profit, so there are some similarities to what we've discussed. It would be an uphill climb to remove our long-time director who started and ran the organization, just like it may be an uphill climb for the ECC board to remove a pastor who started and ran the church for many years.
3. I have a couple family members who have served on two different GC church boards so that's influencing my response. I have a good understanding of the power dynamic between the pastors and the boards in those two churches; I am assuming that there are some strong similarities between those two and ECC's board.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 01:34:35 pm by Boggs » Logged
Janet Easson Martin
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1429



« Reply #131 on: March 27, 2018, 12:56:10 pm »

Absolutely, Linda!

In any honest investigation!  


ECC people in the loop + Those alleging abuse outside the loop = NOT independent investigation


That kind of math always equals BIASED and NON-Independent !


« Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 01:00:10 pm by Janet Easson Martin » Logged

For grace is given not because we have done good works, but in order that we may be able to do them.        - Saint Augustine
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #132 on: March 27, 2018, 12:58:01 pm »

In a facebook post from several days ago, Suzanne stated that she got an email from Lynn Newman stating that her request for a mutually agreed to independent investigator would be presented to the board tonight (3/27). She also stated it was a rumor that the board would be making a decision tonight on the overall allegations.  I have no other information other than I have independently confirmed from my pastor that there is an ECC board meeting scheduled tonight - I have no idea what topics will be discussed.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2510



« Reply #133 on: March 27, 2018, 01:20:20 pm »

Quote from: DV
In a facebook post from several days ago, Suzanne stated that she got an email from Lynn Newman stating that her request for a mutually agreed to independent investigator would be presented to the board tonight (3/27). She also stated it was a rumor that the board would be making a decision tonight on the overall allegations.  I have no other information other than I have independently confirmed from my pastor that there is an ECC board meeting scheduled tonight - I have no idea what topics will be discussed.

Thanks, DV, I thought it had been mentioned a few days ago, but your post from earlier this morning was the one that came to mind. I had forgotten they said she would present the board with her request to a mutually agreed upon independent investigator. Let's hope that ECC sees the wisdom in finding someone who all agree upon.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Faith
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 20



« Reply #134 on: March 27, 2018, 01:54:20 pm »

Again, I come back to the point that many on this forum believe any and all leaders within GCC are corrupt, all of them, and are not capable of being ethical or are able to act in line with scripture.  I have posed the question several times and everyone on this forum ignores the question.   Here is the question; do you wholeheartedly believe that the entire leadership and any and all persons that are brought into leadership, including the BOT are corrupt and incapable of ethical decisions or actions?

GTA - I think this is a really interesting question. I don't "wholeheartedly believe the entire leadership and any and all person that are brought into leadership, including the BOT are corrupt and incapable of ethical decisions or actions" but I do have to stake out a middle ground between that statement and the position I think you have.

I think there are a lot of good, ethical people in GC churches, like there are everywhere. I think the ECC board is probably full of reliable and trustworthy people. They are probably earnest and well intentioned.

I think they are put in a very difficult position. They are (probably?) chosen by the pastors, and now will be asked to pass judgement on one of the most prominent pastors in the entire movement. A pastor who quite possibly "saved them" or "brought them to Christ". And their normal job is financial oversight? That is a very tall order. I wouldn't say they are corrupt, but I think they are under a great deal of pressure in a way they're not prepared to handle.

Honestly the structure of the whole church is not set up to support a robust investigation. The power lies with the core group of pastors (particularly the most senior pastors), not with the board. But in this case they're forced to recuse themselves leaving a vacuum behind. Ideally there'd be a level of church governance above them. Or a congregation to demand transparent investigation so a decision could be made by all. What you have now is weird web of pastors accountable to pastors, and board members appointed by pastors, but pastors not accountable to board members (in ordinary circumstances). It's not a system I'd want to stake my church's reputation on.

A few notes.
1. My current church doesn't do this much better (planted by the current lead pastor, and a board selected by the pastor but voted on by the members of the congregation) and that's concerning to me. I've thought about church governance more in the last 2 months than ever before.
2. I just wrapped up 6 years on a non-profit board, 4 years as the president. We just revised our bylaws to clarify the relationship between the board of directors and the executive director. In our case, the current director has served for 35 years and started the non-profit, so there are some similarities to what we've discussed. It would be an uphill climb to remove our long-time director who started and ran the organization, just like it may be an uphill climb for the ECC board to remove a pastor who started and ran the church for many years.
3. I have a couple family members who have served on two different Wisconsin GC church boards so that's influencing my response. I have a good understanding of the power dynamic between the pastors and the boards in those two churches; I am assuming that there are some strong similarities between those two and ECC's board.

Boggs thank you for the thoughtful response.  I am really hoping to hear from Linda on this as well.  But I disagree in your view of the "power" that is held by any one man within our churches.  You stated that it would be an uphill climb to remove a pastor who started and ran ECC.  Again, you would be going on the assumption that there is corruption within the leadership, and there is not.  Mark is one of the most humble, and honestly so, people I have ever met.  He is the first to point out his own shortcomings, his failures, and he certainly does not sugar coat it with smooth words.  If there would ever be a need to remove someone, especially MD, or any other pastor, it would not be an issue, does not matter who the pastor is. Didn't another pastor step down several years ago because of an affair, was he not the lead pastor?   Anyone have more details on that? There would not be a fight, except in this situation where many believe he is being falsely accused of things that never happened.  And there is a fight because people know his character, his fruit, people KNOW his life.    You may  not agree with the structure, but you do not take into account the level of accountability these men have in each others lives.  Others have complained on this forum about the level of accountability that is pushed within the church's members, how ironic.  I have seen a church fall, a baptist church, with a structure that you seem to agree with.  They ship in a pastor from other parts of the country, but are seminary trained.  The congregation is involved in all sorts of decision making, voting in deacons, etc.   But at some point what was lost was personal accountability with the head pastor.  Here he was having an affair with a church employee.  Now I am not knocking baptist churches at all, and thankfully this church has recovered amazingly well, and has had an amazing pastor and doing so many great things to promote the gospel, etc.  It is a great church.  But this is a fallen world, and no matter what leadership structures and voting and policies that are in place, men will fall.  I was drawn to ECC because of how they structure their leadership...imagine that.  And it has shown me that personal accountability is more valuable than being able to vote on which lay person from my location is on the BOT, or what color carpet should go in, how much should we spend on refreshments, and so on.   These men KNOW each other, intimately, honestly, openly. 

What pastor (or location?) are you referring to GTA? For the affair I mean
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2510



« Reply #135 on: March 27, 2018, 02:05:27 pm »

Quote from: GTA
Again, I come back to the point that many on this forum believe any and all leaders within GCC are corrupt, all of them, and are not capable of being ethical or are able to act in line with scripture.  I have posed the question several times and everyone on this forum ignores the question.   Here is the question; do you wholeheartedly believe that the entire leadership and any and all persons that are brought into leadership, including the BOT are corrupt and incapable of ethical decisions or actions?

Quote from: GTA
I am really hoping to hear from Linda on this as well.

When I see comments like this, I usually assume they are rhetorical in nature, so I don't answer.

As to your question.

My answer. I have no idea since I don't know who we are talking about.

I believe that God gives people spiritual gifts. There are many gifts mentioned in the Bible. One of the gifts is discernment. When you remove the congregation from deciding on who will serve on governing and disciplinary boards of the church and put that in the hands of a few self-appointed elders, you are making the assumption that the elders making the decisions have all the spiritual gifts necessary to make wise decisions. I think that is a huge mistake.

If ECC leaders were aware of abuse and covered it up they are corrupt and should be removed from positions of leadership.





Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2510



« Reply #136 on: March 27, 2018, 02:12:47 pm »

Quote from: GTA
I asked, and was told, but I am also a member.  It is not purposely hidden information.

If it is not hidden information, would you care to tell us who the board members are?

Also, are there some current ECC members here who have asked and not been given the names of the board members? I was thinking some current members said they were not given that information.



Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #137 on: March 27, 2018, 02:29:18 pm »

Current member (since 2003). Have asked my pastor and Lynn Newman. Was told it is non public information..and Iíve been clear in other posts on my thoughts on a secret Board. Iím going to generalize and say anyone who doesnít have an issue with a secret Board has drunk the koolaid to a greater degree than I will ever be capable of.
Logged
GodisFaithful
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



« Reply #138 on: March 27, 2018, 02:50:10 pm »

Perhaps GTA is a part of the inner circle of membership.

And DV is somehow in some kind of outer circle.

Aren't there different levels? Like trusted leaders vs not so trusted leaders vs loyal followers vs fringe vs hope they leave types?

That was my  experience.
Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #139 on: March 27, 2018, 03:01:21 pm »

If I wasn't outer circle before this all started I definitely am now... Grin
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1