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
December 02, 2021, 11:52:12 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Hypocritical Actions of Mark Bowen  (Read 38531 times)
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #60 on: July 18, 2018, 09:30:16 am »

PietWowo, do agree that an “independent” investigator hired by ECC found that Mark did indeed meet alone with women and engage in sexually inappropriate conversations with said women? Because that’s what happened. If you choose not to believe this, you are living in an alternate reality.
Logged
PietWowo
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 263



« Reply #61 on: July 18, 2018, 09:36:13 am »

You sound just like the Darling family, so I think you are a fake.

I think it is so awful that Mark Darling took advantage of a young beautiful 19 year old girl, as her pastor, and that he emotionally and sexually abused her and manipulated her for many years. And she was not the only one. Mark preyed on other young beautiful girls and he hid this from his family, the way many men hide their sexual sin.

He was found out by a thorough investigation done by his church.

There you go again.... The same thing.   I do like your name though.

So, are you going to answer my three questions on agreement, or are you going to ignore them and just repeat the same thing?
Logged
PietWowo
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 263



« Reply #62 on: July 18, 2018, 09:37:16 am »

PietWowo, do agree that an “independent” investigator hired by ECC found that Mark did indeed meet alone with women and engage in sexually inappropriate conversations with said women? Because that’s what happened. If you choose not to believe this, you are living in an alternate reality.

Would you mind copying the exact words from the investigation, please? 

Thank you.
Logged
EscapeFromSummitview
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 24



« Reply #63 on: July 18, 2018, 09:54:14 am »

PietWowo, do agree that an “independent” investigator hired by ECC found that Mark did indeed meet alone with women and engage in sexually inappropriate conversations with said women? Because that’s what happened. If you choose not to believe this, you are living in an alternate reality.

Would you mind copying the exact words from the investigation, please? 

Thank you.

It's available in this thread: http://forum.gcmwarning.com/general-discussion/investigation-findings-and-board-action/
Logged
PietWowo
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 263



« Reply #64 on: July 18, 2018, 10:09:11 am »

PietWowo, do agree that an “independent” investigator hired by ECC found that Mark did indeed meet alone with women and engage in sexually inappropriate conversations with said women? Because that’s what happened. If you choose not to believe this, you are living in an alternate reality.

Would you mind copying the exact words from the investigation, please? 

Thank you.

It's available in this thread: http://forum.gcmwarning.com/general-discussion/investigation-findings-and-board-action/

Are you talking about this part?

Quote
"From the investigator’s report: “the investigation does support the fact that Mark Darling, while holding a position of authority, engaged in inappropriate conduct. . . .”  Specifically, this conduct included spending time alone with women in private settings and inappropriate conversations with women of a sexual nature."
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #65 on: July 18, 2018, 10:11:50 am »

You do agree with me that Suzanne was in a sexual relationship as a 19 year old, while she was not married to this guy, whoever he might be.... Huh Right?  No.  We do not know the context or timing of what Mark was asking about.  Could have been after she was married.  Could have been someone who chronically sexually abused her.  Could have been in a previous relationship that she ended, maybe before being a believer. Only you seem to think you know about that.  And you are creepy to fixate on it, btw.  

You do agree that the entire Darling family is in total support of their dad, that they call him the greatest dad in the world, right? You do agree that they are in support of their dad and husband, right? Yes.  Just like Bill Cosby's family says the same about their father, so I'm not sure what this proves.

You do agree that Mark Darling a number of years later was asked to perform the wedding of Suzanne, right?  Yes. Again, what do your questions prove?  Do you not understand how abuse works in the context of a relationship?  Like others have done on this forum (Jeromy Darling was a big one for this), you are applying rules for how you think abused people *should* behave.  "If they were really abused, they would do a., b., c., and d." As in, if SVD was truly abused, she wouldn't have Mark perform her wedding, so therefore that fact sets up a great logical argument to prove that she was not abused.  Please.  In reality, those invented rules are not how most victims respond.  If you'd like to read extensively about abuse--and I mean a minimum 9-10 books, then please come and give us your expert opinion on how abuse works.  I recommend starting with Trauma & Recovery by Judith Herman as it is considered the gold standard in the field. Also please study the Duluth Model for abusers.  

We understand you don't believe the testimony of 2 witnesses (1 Tim 5:19 among other places).  Is that because you do not believe that women are allowed to give a valid testimony?

I started this thread, PietWowo, to discuss Mark Bowen and his unchallenged abuse of power.  Please start another thread if you would like to draw attention to your conspiracy theory which Mark Darling is NOT guilty of clergy sexual abuse and misconduct.  

 


You do agree with me that Suzanne was in a sexual relationship as a 19 year old, while she was not married to this guy, whoever he might be.... Huh Right?  

You do agree that the entire Darling family is in total support of their dad, that they call him the greatest dad in the world, right? You do agree that they are in support of their dad and husband, right?

You do agree that Mark Darling a number of years later was asked to perform the wedding of Suzanne, right?

If you don't agree with these three statements, which one of them do you not agree with and why?
Logged
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #66 on: July 18, 2018, 12:07:09 pm »

PietWowo, do agree that an “independent” investigator hired by ECC found that Mark did indeed meet alone with women and engage in sexually inappropriate conversations with said women? Because that’s what happened. If you choose not to believe this, you are living in an alternate reality.

Would you mind copying the exact words from the investigation, please? 

Thank you.

It's available in this thread: http://forum.gcmwarning.com/general-discussion/investigation-findings-and-board-action/

Are you talking about this part?

Quote
"From the investigator’s report: “the investigation does support the fact that Mark Darling, while holding a position of authority, engaged in inappropriate conduct. . . .”  Specifically, this conduct included spending time alone with women in private settings and inappropriate conversations with women of a sexual nature."

Yes
Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 955



« Reply #67 on: July 18, 2018, 01:10:53 pm »

I've been thinking about what Mark Bowen has done to other people, the whole time covering the serious and serial sexual sin of a fellow pastor. 

Mark Bowen was involved in the excommunication of a member for "gossip" about a pastor.  They held official hearings, asked friends for testimonies against the member, wrote up leadership's side, distributed that to the church, kicked the members out, and asked the entire church not to have any contact with this family and extended family.  To clarify, the gossip was not unfounded accusations of assault or anything like that, it was about a conflict regarding a negative letter the pastor wrote about the member. 

Mark Bowen yelled at a tent-making pastor (so not one of the revered founding members like Mark Darling was) and wrote a blaming/shaming document about him which was then distributed among that pastor's church. There was no identified sin or failing of this pastor.  He just didn't "fit" the mold they were looking for.

A (different) pastor did have an issue that rightfully meant he should step away from ministry for a time (not sexual in nature and he didn't victimize anyone else, so perhaps less serious than sexual abuse/misconduct).  At two different churches, Sunday morning services were dedicated to the public shaming of that pastor AFTER he resigned.  At one of the churches, FIVE pastors got up to disparage the former pastor, including Mark Bowen AND Mark Darling.  So, Mark Bowen, who KNEW that Mark Darling had committed inappropriate behavior with multiple women, stood next to him and publicly shamed a "less important" pastor for a less serious personal struggle.  Mark Bowen participated in both services of the public shaming.

Mark Bowen was involved in the abusive mentoring and public shaming of a tent-making pastor, the public shaming of another resigned pastor, and the excommunication and public shaming of members.  He did all of these things simultaneously with Mark Darling's ongoing inappropriate conduct that Mark Bowen knew about the whole time.  He stood shoulder to shoulder with Mark Darling as a colleague as he took out lesser pastors and sheep.  If this is not hypocrisy and moral failure, I don't know what is.  If this does not demonstrate character unfit for ministry, I don't know what else does.  And Mark Bowen is going unchallenged about all of it.

Rebel, I was travelling when you first posted this, so I read it over rather quickly and didn't take it in as I should have. Now that I've had time to read it more carefully, I'm appalled at what happened to those people. It's heartbreaking.

I have no words to express how disgusting Mark Bowen's behavior is on multiple levels. To make it worse, he's untouchable, as far as human legal codes go. If his own congregation doesn't see his unfitness and oust him, then he will remain entrenched at the head of his dysfunctional little kingdom for the rest of his career. My hope is that God will open the eyes of those Evergreen members who truly love the Lord, and lead them to a church where He is honored by the leadership.
Logged
GodisFaithful
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



« Reply #68 on: July 18, 2018, 01:20:59 pm »

Rebel,

This is what can happen when accountability is lacking. Someone like Mark Bowen can just do what is right in his own eyes, Lord it over people, yell at people, oust people, demean them, shame them, smear their reputation and strut away, think he has served the Lord. This is what happens when leaders appoint each other. It is truly sickening when the truth comes out. I know that this sickens God's heart too. Shepherds were never ever supposed to act this way. What a travesty.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 01:48:25 pm by GodisFaithful » Logged
Cult Proof
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 67



« Reply #69 on: July 18, 2018, 04:26:29 pm »


I appreciate your calling out of Mark Bowen, but I don't desire an apology from him.  GCC has a 30 year history of apologizing and manipulating people into agreeing that they are working towards restoring themselves to a healthy church.  That's just further abuse and a lie.  Their apologies aren't sincere.  Their apologies are self-seeking, motivated by an effort to save their own image.  I don't need anything from Mark Bowen or any abusive person to move on with my life. My peace and joy and identity are rooted in Christ.  Their words are meaningless in the realm of Jesus.  As in Mark 3, Jesus will look at these leaders with anger, that's enough for me.  I am much more interested in seeing people realize the truth of who these self proclaimed leaders are and separating themselves from them. I do hope that people would begin to realize that they were manipulated and abused into believing lies about us and others.  But I don't even need that, I know the truth about the reality of my experience.  I am thankful to be out of GCC because now we are free to live and love and be loved.
Logged
PietWowo
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 263



« Reply #70 on: July 18, 2018, 05:16:10 pm »

You do agree with me that Suzanne was in a sexual relationship as a 19 year old, while she was not married to this guy, whoever he might be.... Huh Right?  No.  We do not know the context or timing of what Mark was asking about.  Could have been after she was married.  Could have been someone who chronically sexually abused her.  Could have been in a previous relationship that she ended, maybe before being a believer. Only you seem to think you know about that.  And you are creepy to fixate on it, btw. 

You do agree that the entire Darling family is in total support of their dad, that they call him the greatest dad in the world, right? You do agree that they are in support of their dad and husband, right? Yes.  Just like Bill Cosby's family says the same about their father, so I'm not sure what this proves.

You do agree that Mark Darling a number of years later was asked to perform the wedding of Suzanne, right?  Yes. Again, what do your questions prove?  Do you not understand how abuse works in the context of a relationship?  Like others have done on this forum (Jeromy Darling was a big one for this), you are applying rules for how you think abused people *should* behave.  "If they were really abused, they would do a., b., c., and d." As in, if SVD was truly abused, she wouldn't have Mark perform her wedding, so therefore that fact sets up a great logical argument to prove that she was not abused.  Please.  In reality, those invented rules are not how most victims respond.  If you'd like to read extensively about abuse--and I mean a minimum 9-10 books, then please come and give us your expert opinion on how abuse works.  I recommend starting with Trauma & Recovery by Judith Herman as it is considered the gold standard in the field. Also please study the Duluth Model for abusers. 

We understand you don't believe the testimony of 2 witnesses (1 Tim 5:19 among other places).  Is that because you do not believe that women are allowed to give a valid testimony?

I started this thread, PietWowo, to discuss Mark Bowen and his unchallenged abuse of power.  Please start another thread if you would like to draw attention to your conspiracy theory which Mark Darling is NOT guilty of clergy sexual abuse and misconduct. 

 


You do agree with me that Suzanne was in a sexual relationship as a 19 year old, while she was not married to this guy, whoever he might be.... Huh Right? 

You do agree that the entire Darling family is in total support of their dad, that they call him the greatest dad in the world, right? You do agree that they are in support of their dad and husband, right?

You do agree that Mark Darling a number of years later was asked to perform the wedding of Suzanne, right?

If you don't agree with these three statements, which one of them do you not agree with and why?

Point 1. I was under the impression that she had a boyfriend that she was sleeping with and was then "counseling" with Mark Darling. You seem to say that she might have been married. So, are you saying that Mark asked her about sexual life inside the confides of this other man, who was also an elder there, or that she was then on her second marriage? Or you seem to say it could be someone who was abusing her. That last one could be a possibility, I guess. We don't know then.

Point 2. I don't know the Cosby family, not that I know the Darlings, outside of many years ago. But I would say from all of the people that I know that know them well, that it would be hard to deceive your own family like that. I have a hard time believing that, especially since they have come up with such a good detailed response.

Point 3. Yes, but it doesn't make sense that her husband, being a fellow elder would not know anything of this and that they would do a wedding with Mark Darling. If I was getting married to a woman, who was abused by a fellow elder of mine, I would definitely make this a big HUGE issue at the time. I would not say: "Oh, maybe he can do our wedding." Makes no sense.

Yes, of course women can give valid testimony. Where did I ever say that they couldn't.

We are only talking about Mark Bowen, whom I don't know, because of the issue with Mark Darling. So, this is very connected. It's not like I'm talking about Predestination or something like that. It's definitely part of this. Besides that the subject heading you choose was "The Hypocritical Actions of Mark Bowen."  So, the subject matter is someones "actions" not the person itself, if you get technical. Now, you are implying this as relating to Mark Darling. Besides that the very first line proves that you are talking specifically about the actions relating to a fellow pastor, i.e. Mark Darling. It's very much on topic.

But I appreciate you dealing with my points... So, that's good.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 05:41:32 pm by PietWowo » Logged
Ghost
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 303



« Reply #71 on: July 18, 2018, 05:30:51 pm »

So nice if there is a like button here for heartfelt..truthful..touches your spirit posts....... and a delete and block button for bottom feeder low life losers
Logged
PietWowo
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 263



« Reply #72 on: July 18, 2018, 05:32:18 pm »

PietWowo, do agree that an “independent” investigator hired by ECC found that Mark did indeed meet alone with women and engage in sexually inappropriate conversations with said women? Because that’s what happened. If you choose not to believe this, you are living in an alternate reality.

Would you mind copying the exact words from the investigation, please? 

Thank you.

It's available in this thread: http://forum.gcmwarning.com/general-discussion/investigation-findings-and-board-action/

Are you talking about this part?

Quote
"From the investigator’s report: “the investigation does support the fact that Mark Darling, while holding a position of authority, engaged in inappropriate conduct. . . .”  Specifically, this conduct included spending time alone with women in private settings and inappropriate conversations with women of a sexual nature."

Yes

Ok, Barb, then the only thing we can talk about according to this very report is that there were two things:

1. Spending time alone with women in private settings.  That by itself is against the rules of that church.  Mark Darling would have known this and maybe even drawn up that rule himself. I can say that leadership in GCx churches are generally careful with that and this is not common practice. If anything, the pastors will bring in their wives for any sort of conversations of very private nature like that. I'm not saying it is impossible, but I will say it generally does not happen. Heck, you should see some pastors in other countries outside of the USA. It's totally different. Mark Darling's children deny that this every even happened. But just spending time together alone with other women is by itself not a sin, but it is very, very stupid.  I think Billy Graham is probably the biggest example of avoiding all of that. But you don't want at the same time become very legalistic. For instance, I know of a "Christian College" where this wasn't allowed and even a female student got in trouble, when her dad picked her up from school in a car. Dating couples could not be together without sheperones and if they wanted to talk privately, they would have to go to a specific room with couches for dating couples, but someone would walk in between them. But again, I think that spending time alone with someone of the opposite sex as a pastor is not wise.

2. Sexually inappropriate conversations. Of course that's inappropriate. But what were the conversations? It's a very, very vague statement. It depends a lot on the relationships, etc....  I would need more context and details to make any sort of decision on this. He could have asked her whether she is sleeping with someone, which would be an appropriate question, especially if Suzanne had implied that to some intimate details... It all depends on the context. The last example would definitely be inappropriate. But again his family denies this whole thing, but there is not enough details here for me to come to any concrete conclusion.

But I appreciate you bringing up something like the report. It's better then just talking past each other.
Logged
PietWowo
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 263



« Reply #73 on: July 18, 2018, 05:35:50 pm »

Rebel,

This is what can happen when accountability is lacking. Someone like Mark Bowen can just do what is right in his own eyes, Lord it over people, yell at people, oust people, demean them, shame them, smear their reputation and strut away, think he has served the Lord. This is what happens when leaders appoint each other. It is truly sickening when the truth comes out. I know that this sickens God's heart too. Shepherds were never ever supposed to act this way. What a travesty.

Woa... woa.... I've known a lot of GCx elders and I've never seen this behaviour that you are describing. "Yell, oust, demean, shame, etc..." If anything, they are very low key passive type of people. Most of them are either meloncholics or phlegmatics. I've never heard an elder from GCx yell at anyone. I'm not saying that it is impossible, but very unlikely. Definitely not to paint people with that broad of a brush.

Now, I don't know Mark Bowen, so I can't comment on him.
Logged
PietWowo
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 263



« Reply #74 on: July 18, 2018, 05:39:10 pm »


I appreciate your calling out of Mark Bowen, but I don't desire an apology from him.  GCC has a 30 year history of apologizing and manipulating people into agreeing that they are working towards restoring themselves to a healthy church.  That's just further abuse and a lie.  Their apologies aren't sincere.  Their apologies are self-seeking, motivated by an effort to save their own image.  I don't need anything from Mark Bowen or any abusive person to move on with my life. My peace and joy and identity are rooted in Christ.  Their words are meaningless in the realm of Jesus.  As in Mark 3, Jesus will look at these leaders with anger, that's enough for me.  I am much more interested in seeing people realize the truth of who these self proclaimed leaders are and separating themselves from them. I do hope that people would begin to realize that they were manipulated and abused into believing lies about us and others.  But I don't even need that, I know the truth about the reality of my experience.  I am thankful to be out of GCC because now we are free to live and love and be loved.

I'm glad that you look to Christ for your love. I would think that most GCx elders would feel the same way. GCx elders are not self proclaimed. They've been recognized by other elders. The only one that might even remotely fit that description would have been Jim McCotter, but his churches recognized him.
Logged
EscapeFromSummitview
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 24



« Reply #75 on: July 18, 2018, 05:54:46 pm »

Quote
Sexually inappropriate conversations. Of course that's inappropriate. But what were the conversations? It's a very, very vague statement. It depends a lot on the relationships, etc....  I would need more context and details to make any sort of decision on this.

ECC's BoT, a group of people appointed by the pastors themselves, who would have a strong desire to exonerate Mark Darling if possible, hired an outside investigator to look into the details of the accusations. Based on the report provided to the BoT, this group of people concluded he was inappropriate to the point of removing his ordination. This same board made the decision to keep the details of the report from the public.

Therefore, you don't have the context, and neither do we, because ECC chose to keep it a secret. But Joan did. If the accusations were really that minor, or as full of 'holes' as you or Jeromy Darling have suggested, she should have easily been able to refute or explain them? Seems kind of silly to say the BoT's conclusion was invalid because we don't have the report, when they are the ones keeping it from the public. Joan offered to write an anonimized version of it and they declined.
Logged
PietWowo
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 263



« Reply #76 on: July 18, 2018, 06:01:41 pm »

Quote
Sexually inappropriate conversations. Of course that's inappropriate. But what were the conversations? It's a very, very vague statement. It depends a lot on the relationships, etc....  I would need more context and details to make any sort of decision on this.

ECC's BoT, a group of people appointed by the pastors themselves, who would have a strong desire to exonerate Mark Darling if possible, hired an outside investigator to look into the details of the accusations. Based on the report provided to the BoT, this group of people concluded he was inappropriate to the point of removing his ordination. This same board made the decision to keep the details of the report from the public.

Therefore, you don't have the context, and neither do we, because ECC chose to keep it a secret. But Joan did. If the accusations were really that minor, or as full of 'holes' as you or Jeromy Darling have suggested, she should have easily been able to refute or explain them? Seems kind of silly to say the BoT's conclusion was invalid because we don't have the report, when they are the ones keeping it from the public. Joan offered to write an anonimized version of it and they declined.

Since we don't have the context of these phrases, it would be wrong to just accept Suzanne's version of it. That's why I would suggest you all to carefully investigate both claims from both parties and draw your conclusion on that. Because the report is not very clear. I feel like I read both sides and have drawn a conclusion that makes sense to me. Would you respect my right to that opinion?
Logged
EscapeFromSummitview
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 24



« Reply #77 on: July 18, 2018, 06:07:51 pm »

Quote
Since we don't have the context of these phrases, it would be wrong to just accept Suzanne's version of it. That's why I would suggest you all to carefully investigate both claims from both parties and draw your conclusion on that. Because the report is not very clear. I feel like I read both sides and have drawn a conclusion that makes sense to me. Would you respect my right to that opinion?

How exactly have you listened to 'both sides' of the story? Multiple accusers came forward to Joan after she started her investigation, and the details of what they shared was not made public. Mark Darling never made a public statement or explanation of his side of events, other than what his children posted.
Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #78 on: July 18, 2018, 06:09:03 pm »

Mark Bowen put it in writing himself that he yelled at someone.  He minimized it, said he was sorry, that the recipient of the yelling forgave him, so in his mind the issue is not to be discussed again. The document which he created and wrote that he yelled at the tent-making pastor was handed out to an entire church.  

So, PW, not impossible, and not unlikely.  It happened.  

I suppose the definition of shame would be different for you because you want to shame victims here.  But public meetings and writings distributed for "gossip," ousting a pastor for obscure reasons, none of which were related to job performance or ability to do his job...well, you want to go to a church like that, you go right ahead. I'd rather go to a church that first focuses on making sure the leadership is non-predatory and getting rid of those guys first.  

This church that spied on members--which is also in writing as a former member made comments about spiritual abuse using a pseudonym (not their real name) WITHOUT NAMING the pastors or the church. Someone from their church was stalking that person online and included those comments in the excommunication paperwork as that person's attempt to "scare people."  I mean, does the average person who goes to Cedarcreek know that someone there can monitor their online activity and use their participation on healing blogs as a way to discipline and shun them?  I didn't know that when I went there.  

Also, who uses terms like meloncholics or phlegmatics other than Brent Knox and Mark Bowen?  That was one of their flimsy excuses for not standing up to Mark Darling. Must be a "thing" in GCC.  You should try the enneagram or Meyers Briggs instead Wink  
 



Woa... woa.... I've known a lot of GCx elders and I've never seen this behaviour that you are describing. "Yell, oust, demean, shame, etc..." If anything, they are very low key passive type of people. Most of them are either meloncholics or phlegmatics. I've never heard an elder from GCx yell at anyone. I'm not saying that it is impossible, but very unlikely. Definitely not to paint people with that broad of a brush.

Now, I don't know Mark Bowen, so I can't comment on him.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2018, 06:59:28 pm by Rebel in a Good Way » Logged
PietWowo
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 263



« Reply #79 on: July 18, 2018, 06:37:49 pm »

Mark Bowen put it in writing himself that he yelled at someone.  He minimized it, said he was sorry, that the recipient of the yelling forgave him, so in his mind the issue is not to be discussed again. The document which he created and wrote that he yelled at the tent-making pastor was handed out to an entire church.  

So, PW, not impossible, and not unlikely.  It happened.  

I suppose the definition of shame would be different for you because you want to shame victims here.  But public meetings and writings distributed for "gossip," reasons none of which were related to job performance or ability to do his job...well, you want to go to a church like that, you go right ahead. I'd rather go to a church that first focuses on making sure the leadership is non-predatory and getting rid of those guys first.  

This church that spied on members--which is also in writing as a former member made comments about spiritual abuse using a pseudonym (not their real name) WITHOUT NAMING the pastors or the church. Someone from their church was stalking that person online and included those comments in the excommunication paperwork as that person's attempt to "scare people."  I mean, does the average person who goes to Cedarcreek know that someone there can monitor their online activity and use their participation on healing blogs as a way to discipline and shun them?  I didn't know that when I went there.  

Also, who uses terms like meloncholics or phlegmatics other than Brent Knox and Mark Bowen?  That was one of their flimsy excuses for not standing up to Mark Darling. Must be a "thing" in GCC.  You should try the enneagram or Meyers Briggs instead Wink  
 



Woa... woa.... I've known a lot of GCx elders and I've never seen this behaviour that you are describing. "Yell, oust, demean, shame, etc..." If anything, they are very low key passive type of people. Most of them are either meloncholics or phlegmatics. I've never heard an elder from GCx yell at anyone. I'm not saying that it is impossible, but very unlikely. Definitely not to paint people with that broad of a brush.

Now, I don't know Mark Bowen, so I can't comment on him.

If Mark Bowen yelled at someone and apologized, I guess I will accept his apology. He shouldn't have done that, but he agrees with that himself, if he apologized. Again, I don't know him. I've never seen a GCx elder yell at another person. But I've seen them in tense discussions. But I've never seen them yell. But then if he did, then yes, that wasn't write, but then he apologized and we should forgive him. Listen elder aren't perfect, but neither is anyone here on this forum. They are supposed to be more mature people.

No, I'm not wanting to shame victims here. But have you ever thought about how that the real victims of all of this might be the family of Mark Darling. If what Suzanne said is true, then that sin was first of all against God, then against his own family, and then against Suzanne. So, be careful just accepting just Suzanne's testimony without hearing the other side. Besides that I don't appreciate how you just try to shame me... because I've come to another conclusion.

If someone posts something on a public forum, then it is posted there and part of their reputation. One way to guard from not having "bad elders" is to know what they are up to. For instance, in the country where I live, I many times have to tell girls before they start dating a guy, not to just listen to whatever he says, but check out what he posts on Facebook. I've seen guys, who are very "spiritual" and "nice" to a girl, but when you look at their Facebook page, you'll see that they like all sorts of scantily clad women, comments, or occult things, etc... I would suggest someone to stay away from those types of guys for instance. So, I'm not sure what the context is of this "spying." You need to look at things from both angles. Now sometimes when you are hurt by a church or some identity, like you seem to be, it becomes easy to just want to find out all of the bad things of this church or identity.

You need to be careful about that; it can cloud your judgement.

I did not know that Brent Knox and Mark Bowen used those terms. I got them from another Christian book. "The Spirit Controlled Temperament."  I'm familiar with Meyers. I took a class from him. But it didn't deal with that. Is that the DISC system? If so, it's pretty much the same thing...
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


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