FOX 9 Investigators

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.

[Differentstrokes]

 

[Linda]

Maybe he'll be on MD's side?  He really might be.  We have no idea here on this board.

This was my thought. None of us know what the investigation found or where it will lead.

Probably best to wait to discredit him after the piece airs.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Maybe he'll be on MD's side?  He really might be.  We have no idea here on this board.

I'm pretty sure they are not going to run a story about Mark being unfairly accused.

And I'm more concerned that they chose to run the story prior to the conclusion of the investigation and will have no comment from either Mark or Evergreen than I am about his dill.

[Greentruth]

Maybe he'll be on MD's side?  He really might be.  We have no idea here on this board.

This was my thought. None of us know what the investigation found or where it will lead.

Probably best to wait to discredit him after the piece airs.

Just as it would have been best to wait for all the facts to come out before discrediting Mark,Joan, and the BOT?

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Badger, your font size is getting a little out of control, buddy.

[searching]

Maybe he'll be on MD's side?  He really might be.  We have no idea here on this board.

I'm pretty sure they are not going to run a story about Mark being unfairly accused.

And I'm more concerned that they chose to run the story prior to the conclusion of the investigation and will have no comment from either Mark or Evergreen than I am about his dill.

Do you know if they interviewed MD or ECC? Maybe they declined comment? Maybe they both chose to speak up? It will be interesting to see what an independent investigator found.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

They did not interview either. Evergreen provided a statement to Fox 9 essentially saying it would be inappropriate to comment until after the investigation is complete.

[Badger]

There are several obvious issues in the absurdity of calling this a 3rd party independent investigation.   What drives the local news station investigator, what is his motivation....um, ratings,  and money and recognition, awards to be won, to advance his career.  They want the juiciest stories, they want to bring in the ratings, that equals money and status.  Integrity is not very high on the list of standards.  The story matters more than truth, the spin matters for ratings. 
According to Fox 9's website, the investigative reporter is "a few parts Sherlock Holmes and a few parts storyteller" and "there's nothing more he loves than the thrill of the chase."

GTA, if the allegations against ECC pastors and Mark Darling are found to have merit, what have their motivations been in keeping victims quiet?  Power?  Church image?  Self image?  Revenue?  Loss of respect?  Loss of followers?

Darthvader brought up an excellent point in asking who the Board of Trustee's member from the Rock was.  Most likely this individual, if he hasn't recused himself from the current BOT, was put in place by Mark Darling himself.  How can this BOT member be free from bias when the BOT decides how to investigate and what to do with the confidential findings afterwards?

If Jeromy is completely correct in his quote below, Evergreen started their investigation "to show the world that the church was listening" - and to "simultaneously exonerate my father [Mark Darling]" (doesn't sound like an investigation free from bias to me).

So you're saying that the board did not take your voice into consideration but that you were allowed to express your concerns to them? Was Suzanne or any of the other accusers allowed that same option? Please clarify if you can.
The board did not consult our family and was not obligated to do so - they made the decision, started the process and informed us when it began. They believed that in the current toxic climate surrounding #metoo that an investigation was the best way to show the world that the church was listening AND simultaneously exonerate my father. I disagreed but still love all those men. There were NO other "accusers" when this all began, or even a hint of accusers. Suzanne has refused all attempts to contact her (and has blocked my entire family from her FB page)

Also, I am so sorry that your wife and mother have to relieve their abuse. Would it be better if Gretchen refrained from posting on social media? I would not want her to be re-victimized or have to continually retell that story.
She has a voice, she can use it however she feels is best to defend her father-in-law (the man who lead her to Christ). She has no issue discussing her past and the great healing that she found in Christ, but imagine writing about it would cause one to THINK about it and I doubt that's very much fun.

There are 2 other pastors at The Rock.   

I said "most likely" Mark Darling chose him.  As of 5 months ago Mark Darling was the most senior pastor at the Rock.  On The Rock webpage Mark Darling is still listed as the first pastor above both, much younger, Karl Quickert and Ryan Stahl. 

So GTA, are you really trying to wager that Mark Darling -"co-founder" of Evergreen Church and member of the national GCC Board - did not have any say in who was picked as The Rock's representative on Evergreen's BOT?  Do you have solid evidence to support an alternative?

[Linda]

FYI: Suzanne just issued a statement on her Facebook timeline with some detail on how this came about (she was contacted by Tom Lyden who had received several tips).

[Greentruth]

FYI: Suzanne just issued a statement on her Facebook timeline with some detail on how this came about (she was contacted by Tom Lyden who had received several tips).

I’m sorry, but from a FB post I saw not long after Suzanne made the accusations, she stated she had a friend with a contact to the local news media, and could help her get it on the news. She stated she turned that offer down at the time, but it’s obvious she changed her mind. I specifically remember thinking how terrible that would be even past social media. Not trying to start anything, but it would appear that some cover up going on. Social media at its best.

[Linda]

I know a tiny bit about that. Her friend had connections with a different local TV station. Pretty sure Tom Lyden contacting her was a unexpected.

[Mango]

I know a tiny bit about that. Her friend had connections with a different local TV station. Pretty sure Tom Lyden contacting her was a unexpected.

I'm sure she was simply shocked

[Greentruth]

Also Suzanne is calling on ECC for a third party investigation today. I thought this news cast was now the third party investigation?

[DarthVader]

Not a lot of discussion that 3 women have submitted statements to the ECC investigator (and not been on social media writing about it)..but a lot of focus on how bad social media is, how bad Tom L and Fox9 are, etc.  Just wondering if people think the 3 women are 1) lying 2) just had some sort of misunderstanding 3) don't exist 4) are telling the truth of what they experienced.

I'd hope we'd all agree if they are telling the truth, whatever has been said or will be on FB, Fox9 or here is small compared to the negative impact of a betrayal of trust experienced by these 3 women in real life, away from screens and keyboards, and if anyone is deserving of sympathy, it would be them, not a pastor or a church.

[Greentruth]

The great irony here is that when this report happens, it will be a 3rd party, independent investigation with transparency.

We will all see the results of the investigation at the same time tomorrow at 9:00 on Fox 9.

And, for the record, no matter how the investigation goes, sorrow will be the only proper response.

I’m just trying to understand a few statements here recently. If this report tonight is considered a third party independent investigation with transparency, with basically no input from ECC or MD, why did Suzanne again call for a third party investigation today on her FB post?  And if three women gave statements to Joan, as DV posted, why not wait for the results of that third party investigation that ECC paid for, before giving it to Fox ?
 

[araignee19]

Ask her...

[Greentruth]

I really wish I could. I just remembered Linda’s statement, and realized it didn’t make sense.  Regardless as I do Agree with Agatha, that this needs to be bathed in prayer, as it has been.

[Linda]

The great irony here is that when this report happens, it will be a 3rd party, independent investigation with transparency.

We will all see the results of the investigation at the same time tomorrow at 9:00 on Fox 9.

And, for the record, no matter how the investigation goes, sorrow will be the only proper response.

I’m just trying to understand a few statements here recently. If this report tonight is considered a third party independent investigation with transparency, with basically no input from ECC or MD, why did Suzanne again call for a third party investigation today on her FB post?  And if three women gave statements to Joan, as DV posted, why not wait for the results of that third party investigation that ECC paid for, before giving it to Fox ?
 

For starters, contrary to what you think, I am not Suzanne's spokesperson. Suzanne did not say this. I did.

I used the word "irony" because I thought this was a case of "situational irony" – actions having an effect that is opposite from what was intended.

In this case, I was thinking that Suzanne kept asking ECC for a 3rd party, independent investigation with transparency. ECC (and some of you here) apparently don't know what "3rd party means". In addition, ECC said they can't be transparent.

I, (me, myself, MamaD, Linda) was musing (meaning thinking or reflecting) on this and it occurred to me that without Suzanne hiring anyone, that an independent investigation done by a 3rd party with transparency had happened because Lyden got some tips and contacted Suzanne. I found that ironic. Apparently, you didn't. That is okay.

Today what Suzanne said was: "Many times on social media (and I am aware that Evergreen reads my posts) I have asked for two things: for the victims and Evergreen's Board of Trustees to collaboratively select an independent investigator and to have the findings be made public. I am willing to participate in an investigation in which both sides have given up control to the investigative process."

Again, I don't speak for Suzanne, but I read that as saying she will participate in an investigation in which both sides have given up control to the investigative process. The issue is neither side can control the process and the findings have to be made public.

That said, thinking of Darth Vader's comment, I was shocked to read today that 3 victims had given statements to Joan Harris and since Suzanne did not, we know for sure that 4 women are claiming abuse.

Praying for truth to be revealed in the days to come.

[DarthVader]

Agree Linda - GT, I can't speak for anyone besides me, but based on the other statements on her FB post, I would suspect Suzanne would say she cooperated with Fox9 (her statement is Fox9 came to her she did not seek them out) because Suzanne and 3-4 other victims (in addition to the 3 who cooperated with the ECC investigation) believe the ECC process is compromised and Fox9 offered her and other victims a way to have their story heard without the process being controlled by the church, after unsuccessfully attempting to work with the church on a better process.

You are free to disagree and be as supportive of the ECC process as you'd like, but many of us share and understand her concern with the ECC process, and are more concerned about any pastoral misconduct that may have occurred than what is posted here, FB or shared with Fox9.

But no doubt, it would be easier if victims just did what investigating churches asked them to instead of seeking their own voice in the process.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Just to clarify, this is Suzanne's actual account from her FB page, that yes, a friend had offered to help her share her story.  She declined at the time, but that is what got her thinking about rehashing this so many years later (only to be lied about and thrown under the bus again by Mark Darling's supporters on this very forum).  She did state today that Fox 9 contacted her so she did not use the methods her friend had offered.

"Since my abuse from pastor Mark Darling and the cover up by some of the Evergreen pastors, I have healed and "moved on". Yet one thought continued to niggle away at me over the years, knowing that it is rare "that there is only one story of misconduct".
A year ago, a friend who works for a large corporation as their top media rep, offered to help me take my story of abuse and its cover up to the Twin Cities and national media. I declined her gracious offer as I had tried once 17 years previous (to bring to the attention of the Evergreen pastors) and was lied about and thrown under bus so to speak. Since, I have created a peaceful and enjoyable life and had little desire to upset that.
But then again there was that thought, that it is rare to have "only one story of misconduct", continued to be more than a one time passing thought."

FYI: Suzanne just issued a statement on her Facebook timeline with some detail on how this came about (she was contacted by Tom Lyden who had received several tips).

I’m sorry, but from a FB post I saw not long after Suzanne made the accusations, she stated she had a friend with a contact to the local news media, and could help her get it on the news. She stated she turned that offer down at the time, but it’s obvious she changed her mind. I specifically remember thinking how terrible that would be even past social media. Not trying to start anything, but it would appear that some cover up going on. Social media at its best.