Evergreen's Investigation

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.

[Huldah]

Two questions.

1. Is there a projected timeline for the investigation to wrap up?

2. Exactly how does the investigation proceed? Does the investigator simply wait for interested parties to submit statements, or is she free to initiate contact with potential witnesses? How autonomous is an investigator in these situations?

[AgathaL'Orange]

I've heard nothing.  Nothing is available online.  Is anything even happening?

As long as Scout is satisfied, I'm satisfied, but I'm not seeing that anything has changed.

[searching]

There is no investigation. ECC lawyer has asked for victim impact statements which one person gave and all other victims have not due to it not being an independent 3rd party investigator. ECC, anonymous, board(I state that due to not being able to find out who is on the board) will make a decision on March 27th.

I do find it interesting that all pastors have removed themselves from this, so no matter what decision has been made they have covered their butts. No one knows who is on the board except maybe Lynn Newman and Jim Bird, so no matter what decision is made they have covered themselves...Jim and Lynn will take the blame no matter the decision.

I may be wrong on the information I have about who is on the BOT, if I am I apologize. I can not find board members listed anywhere on the ECC website. To me that is CRAZY. I laugh because so many people are being torn to shreds for posting annonmously here, but why are they not tearing their church apart for having a board that is annonmous and making decisions? Again, please correct me if I am wrong about the anonymity of the BOT(yes, the pastors who are on the BOT are not annonymous).

[JessicaNoelDarling]

There is no investigation. ECC lawyer has asked for victim impact statements which one person gave and all other victims have not due to it not being an independent 3rd party investigator. ECC anonymous(I state that due to not being able to find out who is on the board) will make a decision on March 27th.

I do find it interesting that all pastors have removed themselves from this, so no matter what decision has been made they have covered their butts. No one knows who is on the board except maybe Lynn Newman and Jim Bird, so no matter what decision is made they have covered themselves...Jim and Lynn will take the blame no matter the decision.

I may be wrong on the information I have about who is on the BOT, if I am I apologize. I can not find board members listed anywhere on the ECC website. To me that is CRAZY. I laugh because so many people are being torn to shreds for post annonmously here, but why are they not tearing their church apart for having a board that is annonmous and making decisions? Again, please correct me if I am wrong about the anonymity of the BOT(yes, the pastors who are on the BOT are not annonymous).

Hey, are you current member of our church? Just curious.

[bourneforHim]

   One has to wonder if the board of trustees really exists or if it all comes back to Evergreens founders and a tight knit group most of who attended Iowa State University in Ames in the 1980's.

[GodisFaithful]

I thought that the Board of an organization or a church were people of high moral caliber with professionalism for reputable oversight, people that an organization would be fine with everyone knowing.  Am I naive?

Aside from the investigation, such as it is, some of the pastors know that Mark Darling has had issues in the past of overstepping appropriate boundaries with women because if you look at the testimony of Victim A, she and her husband wrote the pastors a letter and also begged at least one of them to do something about it.  Perhaps at that time the pastors did not take it seriously? Or talked to Mark and felt he took care of it? Or had him step down for a while without anyone but them knowing what had happened? What I think is sad is if this happened with more women after that time.

Regardless of the outcome of the investigation, I believe that this story will receive a wider audience somehow, beyond us little nitwits on this forum. I don't know how, I don't have inside knowledge, but I do not think it is going away.

[searching]

There is no investigation. ECC lawyer has asked for victim impact statements which one person gave and all other victims have not due to it not being an independent 3rd party investigator. ECC anonymous(I state that due to not being able to find out who is on the board) will make a decision on March 27th.

I do find it interesting that all pastors have removed themselves from this, so no matter what decision has been made they have covered their butts. No one knows who is on the board except maybe Lynn Newman and Jim Bird, so no matter what decision is made they have covered themselves...Jim and Lynn will take the blame no matter the decision.

I may be wrong on the information I have about who is on the BOT, if I am I apologize. I can not find board members listed anywhere on the ECC website. To me that is CRAZY. I laugh because so many people are being torn to shreds for post annonmously here, but why are they not tearing their church apart for having a board that is annonmous and making decisions? Again, please correct me if I am wrong about the anonymity of the BOT(yes, the pastors who are on the BOT are not annonymous).

Hey, are you current member of our church? Just curious.

You said you were just curious as to if I am a member or not, I am just wondering why? If I am does it mean I am credible?

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Even though many on this forum like to continue to say that there isn't a third party investigation going on, there is. Many people are being interviewed. It almost seems like some here have already made up their minds - even wanting the accusations to be true. Presumption of innocence be damned.

[GodisFaithful]

Not me. Not at all.

I am not rejoicing over any of it.

I believe the accounts of the victims.  That is where I am coming from.

About 1-2 per cent of sexual abuse victims make stuff up.  Many never come forward.

I am absolutely not rejoicing over any of it.

I think it is a very sad state of affairs. 

[searching]

Even though many on this forum like to continue to say that there isn't a third party investigation going on, there is. Many people are being interviewed. It almost seems like some here have already made up their minds - even wanting the accusations to be true. Presumption of innocence be damned.

You must have an inside scoop to know that "many people are being interviewed". How do you know that?

[Huldah]

If the accusations are true, then a grave injustice was done to innocent women. How could we rejoice in that?

If you've been reading this forum, you can hardly help having some kind of opinion. Mark is innocent, and Suzanne is a liar. Or else Suzanne is telling the truth, and Mark sexually exploited her. You have to assume that someone is guilty of something. If you believe that the evidence supports side A as opposed to side B, how does that somehow make you a worse person than if you saw it the other way around?

[Linda]

I believe that sadly, many on here are almost excited that finally something like this has happened.  It helps them to feel validated.  They are rejoicing.

No matter how this ends, there is no rejoicing over sin. Someone is not telling the truth. May God shine light on that which is dark and bring everything to the light. 

[Godtrumpsall]

If the accusations are true, then a grave injustice was done to innocent women. How could we rejoice in that?

If you've been reading this forum, you can hardly help having some kind of opinion. Mark is innocent, and Suzanne is a liar. Or else Suzanne is telling the truth, and Mark sexually exploited her. You have to assume that someone is guilty of something. If you believe that the evidence supports side A as opposed to side B, how does that somehow make you a worse person than if you saw it the other way around?

I am confused to what you are trying to say.  What I am saying, is that presumption of innocence is the correct way to look at any situation, until otherwise proven.   

[Huldah]

What I'm saying is that, if you presume Mark Darling to be innocent, then you automatically presume Scout and the other accusers to be guilt of lying.

So why am I a worse person just because I think the evidence so far points to Mark being the guilty party instead of Suzanne being the guilty party?

[Godtrumpsall]

What I'm saying is that, if you presume Mark Darling to be innocent, then you automatically presume Scout and the other accusers to be guilt of lying.

So why am I a worse person just because I think the evidence so far points to Mark being the guilty party instead of Suzanne being the guilty party?

Because presumption of innocence is a biblical truth, our justice system is also laid out as such.  You can have your opinion, but in wisdom, in God's wisdom, innocence until proven guilty is the guide laid out before us. 

[omelianchuk]

If the accusations are true, then a grave injustice was done to innocent women. How could we rejoice in that?

If you've been reading this forum, you can hardly help having some kind of opinion. Mark is innocent, and Suzanne is a liar. Or else Suzanne is telling the truth, and Mark sexually exploited her. You have to assume that someone is guilty of something. If you believe that the evidence supports side A as opposed to side B, how does that somehow make you a worse person than if you saw it the other way around?

Actually, it doesn't follow from the belief that Mark is innocent that Suzanne is lying. A liar believes what they are asserting is false. She may very well believe what she is saying is true, but is in fact mistaken about it (assuming, again, Mark is innocent). On this view, one need not presume Suzanne is guilty of anything. Of course, that invites the speculation that she is deluded, which may not be charitable either. As I've said before, though, people who believe Mark is innocent are not required to explain her behavior, and can reasonable say "I don't know" in response to questions about why she is doing what she is doing. And, again, I think that is the wisest thing for Mark's supporters to do, at this point.

[omelianchuk]

What I'm saying is that, if you presume Mark Darling to be innocent, then you automatically presume Scout and the other accusers to be guilt of lying.

So why am I a worse person just because I think the evidence so far points to Mark being the guilty party instead of Suzanne being the guilty party?

To presume Mark is innocent does not automatically presume Suzanne or others to be lying. It means that Mark does not have to prove he is innocent, and his accusers have to make the case he is guilty. You aren't a bad person for believing that Suzanne has made her case; I don't think she has, but that doesn't make me (or others like me) a bad person either.

[GodisFaithful]

I totally agree, it does not make you a bad person for coming to your own conclusions without knowing everything.

[Huldah]

Here's the thing about the presumption of innocence. It holds true until there is convincing evidence of guilt, not in spite of evidence of guilt.

Admittedly, I believed Scout when she first came on this forum, primarily because I've come to know the people on this forum and trust them, as much as one can know and trust strangers on the Internet. Because their experience lines up with what I already know to be true from my own experience, I've never had any reason to doubt 99.9% of what gets posted here.

But, believe it or not, I've listened to both sides of the Mark/Suzanne controversy, and I was willing to change my initial conclusion if that's where the evidence led. It wasn't a case of "presumption of innocence," but a recognition that, "The first to tell his story seems right, until the other comes and examines him."

Since Scout made her first statement, her story has been examined from multiple viewpoints. People on both sides have offered their opinions, observations, and reasons for accepting or rejecting her claims. To me, at this point, Scout's side of the story still seems more believable than Mark's side. You may feel differently, and that's fine. But we're waaaayy past the presumption stage at this point, and well into preliminary-conclusion-based-on-available evidence territory. If new and compelling evidence becomes available, I'll follow it where it leads. I'm also convinced that the other old-timers here have enough integrity to do the same, regardless of whether or not it conflicts with their initial opinions on the subject.

TLDR;: The presumption one starts out with is a lot less important than one's willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

[omelianchuk]

Here's the thing about the presumption of innocence. It holds true until there is convincing evidence of guilt, not in spite of evidence of guilt.

Admittedly, I believed Scout when she first came on this forum, primarily because I've come to know the people on this forum and trust them, as much as one can know and trust strangers on the Internet. Because their experience lines up with what I already know to be true from my own experience, I've never had any reason to doubt 99.9% of what gets posted here.

But, believe it or not, I've listened to both sides of the Mark/Suzanne controversy, and I was willing to change my initial conclusion if that's where the evidence led. It wasn't a case of "presumption of innocence," but a recognition that, "The first to tell his story seems right, until the other comes and examines him."

Since Scout made her first statement, her story has been examined from multiple viewpoints. People on both sides have offered their opinions, observations, and reasons for accepting or rejecting her claims. To me, at this point, Scout's side of the story still seems more believable than Mark's side. You may feel differently, and that's fine. But we're waaaayy past the presumption stage at this point, and well into preliminary-conclusion-based-on-available evidence territory. If new and compelling evidence becomes available, I'll follow it where it leads. I'm also convinced that the other old-timers here have enough integrity to do the same, regardless of whether or not it conflicts with their initial opinions on the subject.

TLDR;: The presumption one starts out with is a lot less important than one's willingness to follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Thanks for your reply, Huldah. I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't think you understand what the Presumption of Innocence entails. It's not something you start out with and then abandon depending how the argument plays out. All it requires is that the burden rests on the accuser to make the case that the accused is guilty, and that there is no burden on the accused to make the case for his innocence. This holds constant through out the case. Even if you think that the accuser succeeds in showing guilt, you don't abandon the principle. Think of it this way: X is presumed innocent until Y proves X is guilty; you believe X proved that Y is guilty. Both beliefs are compatible with one another. One can hold the presumption of innocence while simultaneously holding the principle that one ought to follow the evidence wherever it leads. I think we are both are doing this, though we don't agree in the case of Mark.