Future of Strong Disciple & Mark Darling’s teachings

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.

[UffDa]

I wonder if ECC is going to remove the link to Mark Darling’s website Strong Disciple or any of his teachings available online.

[Badger]

I wonder when they will remove his name from their website.

[DarthVader]

I wonder when they will remove his name from their website.

I think it is not outside the realm of possibility that Mark reverses course - probably won't happen - but Brent kept emphasizing "Mark has a way back" even after he resigned, which I though was strange (almost as if he was pleading with him).

[Sherlock]

DV I don’t think it likely MD ever returns to GCC. They gave him an option to stay (not as a pastor) with a course of action & he instead decided to resign. A reliable source has shared with me the Darling family feels pretty overall betrayed by ECC by not allowing MD to tell his side of the story and that is the the reason for their departures. I am guessing they are standing together as a family through this, please don’t misunderstand this what MD did was very wrong & inappropriate for someone in his position— his family however, has been dragged through the mud in all this (I’ll give you, some of which JD rightfully brought on himself, the reckoning was also not appropriate) my heart hurts for their family (AND the victims) & they really need our prayers (I appeal to you since I have observed & appreciated your respectful & thoughtful tone to both in all this while still calling for justice & truth). Can you imagine trying to find another church again after growing up your entire life in GCC, not to mention with the last name Darling (quick google search & I wonder what would be so easy to find) ? I guess my point from this is there are many casualties & broken lives from all this, many of whom did not ask for this or bring it upon themselves. I agree, this was not a perfect “win” by any stretch.

[DarthVader]

Thanks Sherlock, for the thoughts (which make a lot of sense) and kind words, and I will pray for Mark and his family tonight and in the coming weeks.  My only thought in suggesting Mark might change his mind is that, to be sure, in the heat of the moment, with emotions very raw, I could see the immediate reaction being to leave, followed a few days later by a realization that at age 60, starting over again is really, really hard. I don't know Mark, at all, but my impression from those who know him is that he would probably never do this as he would see it as compromising his principals, especially if he truly believes he did nothing wrong, which is a distinct possibility.  And I especially feel for Micah and Jessica who were never anything but respectful in their engagement.

One piece of common ground I share with the Darlings is that I am very disappointed we have never been permitted to hear his side of the story. Now that he has no obligations to Evergreen of any kind, I wonder if he will write a "Reckoning" of his own, or even do a video youTube style interview version. Jeromy is very talented, and if Mark plans on relaunching a ministry, dealing with the allegations publicly from his perspective seems like a possible first step.

I'm still very much wrestling with how to process what happened. It is a good thing that Mark is no longer at Evergreen, but if I am honest with myself, most of any positive feelings I have about how this was handled are due to the fact he resigned. If he had chosen to accept the path to redemption offered by the BoT, knowing myself, I would be railing against the BoT on this forum and would have certainly decided to leave immediately.  This ties into why I wanted to hear his side of the story, e.g., did he deny things happened the investigator found DID happen, which would be a 2018 set of lies that brings the inappropriate behavior to 2018, not 20+ years ago, in which case I would find it unjust that he was offered a path back, which I suspect is the case.

So I really don't know what to do...I love my pastor, love my location, I'm relieved Mark chose to resign, give the BoT credit for removing his ordination, but I'm troubled he was offered a path back, which is far more lenient than would be appropriate for what happened at the time and the continued denials that put our churches through 5 months of hell. I'm troubled the BoT seemed to minimize his actions - Both Loey & Victim C reported inappropriate physical contact not just inappropriate conversation - this did not seem to be dealt with. I understand the perspective of non-disparement language being "standard" in a severance agreement. What is NOT standard is if a specific ECC employee (Mark Darling) was named in a non-dispargement clause in a severance agreement offered by a different organization than Mark even worked for (GCM vs. ECC) - so I'm not sure if I believe the hush-money stance or not, because I don't know if Mark was or was not named in the severance/non disparagement agreement.  And I'm troubled that there was essentially no discipline for Brent Knox and all and very little for Mark Bowen for the massive failure of accountability.  I'm also not sure how when someone hands you a letter that has the words "sexual abuse" in it in any context, without immediately conducting a complete and thorough investigation.

So I'll admit when I found out Mark had resigned, I felt some happiness (and some of this is because of sinful personal bias on my part) but as things have had a chance to sink in, I'm left feeling not good about all this and especially troubled that as far as I can tell, no outreach has been made to the victims, who were the entire reason for all of this - it was about them, not our church.  And I'm troubled that the reason Mark was offered a path back could very well be because the BoT wanted a "unanimous" decision and the strongest discipline they could get unanmity on included a path back, even though it might have been the completely wrong decision given the facts.

If there are other ECC members on here, I'd welcome your thoughts on how you are processing this (maybe worth a separate thread but ok w/me if you just use this one, although I didn't start it).

[OneOfMany]

DV I too am troubled by the lack of accountability and repercussions for Brent Knox and Mark Bowen. I plan to personally express to them what they have done and why they should not still be leaders in the church. They should thank their lucky stars that they are, however the church has had a long history of glossing over sin which likely leads to their attitudes and a lack of sanctions. Inappropriate sexual boundaries are normal so this church. I am not surprised that some in leadership still do not see that there is a problem.

Not having contacted the victims it's telling. It tells me that they are not repentant, although I cannot know their hearts and minds.

Brent's excuse for his personality type is ridiculous. He has sent threatening letters to past members. He is not incapable of action and confrontation. He has helped to set the culture of poor boundaries which includes open discussion of sexual acts from the stage and in meetings. How is Mark Darling to be held accountable when so many other leaders have sinned in this way, just in a group context? I have no doubt that Mark Darling believes himself innocent because what he said privately goes on openly. The culture of Evergreen is sick and needs a doctor. People need to learn healthy boundaries. Especially the leadership. 

[OneOfMany]

Mark Darling was not allowed to tell his side of the story? Did the investigator not talk to him? I find that odd. Is that normal in an investigation to not talk to the one accused?

Why would he not be allowed to share his side? Was it considered unhelpful to the investigation?

[Badger]

Mark Darling was not allowed to tell his side of the story? Did the investigator not talk to him? I find that odd. Is that normal in an investigation to not talk to the one accused?

Why would he not be allowed to share his side? Was it considered unhelpful to the investigation?

THE INVESTIGATION

As the EC BOT reported in their April 10, 2018 investigation update, on April 5, 2018, two EC BOT members met with Suzanne van Dyck.  At that meeting, she indicated that she would not be participating in the investigation.  However, before the investigation was completed, Suzanne van Dyck did meet with the investigator and was interviewed as a part of this investigation.

The following Evergreen employees were also interviewed by the investigator – Mark Bowen, Mark Darling, Brent Knox and Doug Patterson.

[DarthVader]

Sorry I wasn’t clear. I meant we haven’t heard Mark’s side of the story. E.g. did he say these things never happened or did he say his actions were misinterpreted? 

[OneOfMany]

Sorry I wasn’t clear. I meant we haven’t heard Mark’s side of the story. E.g. did he say these things never happened or did he say his actions were misinterpreted? 

That is true! That must have been painful for him and why his family decided they had to speak out.

I wonder if it would help Mark if he spoke openly. It would make clear if he is a liar (denies allegations), or in need of therapy (needs to learn proper personal boundaries).

[Sherlock]

I also was unclear, MD was asked not to speak publicly on the issue, I believe Micah confirmed this here on another thread. I have no doubt Joan did her due diligence which must have included an interview with MD. I am sure the family’s disappointment lays much in the fact that this has been played out so publicly, but out of respect for what was asked of him (MD) said nothing publicly EC spoke for him. I agree DV, a public statement/apology, something is still missing from MD. I am no longer a member (I left long before any of this happened) but I do appreciate the points you make & things you are wrestling with DV. I think the changes you are calling for and the unanswered questions you are asking are important for the health of this organization moving forward. It is necessary to have people like you to keep pushing for positive changes, praying for clarity as you process this and make decisions for your family.

[GodisFaithful]

DV, I appreciated your lengthy post above, trying to process what is being told to members of EC from the BOT and pastors.

Here are a few of the things that are still making me scratch my head. (I watched the whole Bloomington service on the you tube link):

In the case of a few of the women, and we are left guessing which ones, their story was substantiated about inappropriate sexual comments and inappropriate time alone  by/with Mark Darling. Victim A may have produced the letter she and her husband wrote when they left. If there was a non-disclosure agreement, then that may have been produced or acknowledged by more than one pastor and thus another woman's story substantiated. Turns out Suzanne's letter *did* say "sexual abuse" and "inappropriate sexual boundaries* and there was action that MD did not follow through on from that meeting. So to reach the level of substantiation, I believe some of that kind of proof had to be produced, but that does not mean that Mark Darling did not do all the things the women have said that he did. I means that no one else was in the car, at the restaurant, at the park, in the woods, at Coffman Union, to substantiate the claim. And if some of the allegations are substantiated, it makes you wonder about the others.

I believe there was a tiny little easy to miss apology, sort of, to the women by Brent Knox. I thought it was very inappropriate for him to spend a very long time talking about how Mark has a path back, when Mark has denied all allegations and will not admit any wrong doing at this time. That is so cart-before-the-horse, and I don't think I am alone is saying that I think for Mark to be a pastor again should be out of the question. Can he be trusted to tell the truth? Brent sounds convinced that Mark messed up and was inappropriate, and if Mark denies that, then there is a big problem. And if you are hiding sin, like David in the Bible, you are not in a position to help someone else in a spiritual sense. In fact, a person in power hiding guilt may be overly harsh. Why so much talk about a path back when there is no admission of guilt? This is very, very curious.

I think there should be a personal apology to the women who were members of EC who had the guts to come forward to Mark Bowen and Brent Knox but were basicly brushed off.  Where is the human factor here? Where is the compassion and contrition to make things right with those you have failed to protect and believe? Brent Knox indicated that he is just a regular guy but needs to be more approachable. Then why does he claim to be  a modern day Moses? Which is it?

Brent says he could have stepped in 18 years ago and confronted Mark Darling, and this would have made all the difference. I  doubt it. There was equal authority. And  it sounds like the BOT was not seen as much if any kind of authority over the pastors until now. Brent gave him a pass, just like he did when Mark was guilty of very unsound teaching. "He has got a good heart, he probably didn't mean it the way you took it."

I still think the "severance" offer is suspicious. The BOT says it was offered because of Evergreen's profound appreciation for John and Suzanne. Well then why did they hold a meeting before a large crowd where they spoke disparaging of them (we never should have sent them, don't talk to them or their family)? And about a non-disclosure agreement, the BOT did not choose to address that. Why?

If Mark got to "tell his side of the story" to EC, then what about the women? If we did not have Suzanne's fuller accounts of Mark Darling's behavior with her and with Victim A  and C, then even after the investigation it would be easy to gloss over the whole thing as one or two minor incidents. Suzanne, thank you for having the courage to speak up and also tell the story of others who do not wish to tell their names. No matter what Suzanne's issues may be, and we all have issues that God is dealing with, it does not mean that she was not mistreated and abused emotionally, spiritually, and sexually by Mark Darling.

And one last thing, No, a lot of us are not going to "move on" as if this never happened. There is a lot to mull over and digest. I personally know a number of the victims. To say "move on already" is insulting. Evergreen is not "moving on", they are hopefully making a lot of changes and trying to deal with the aftermath. We, on the forum, are adults and do not need to be bossed around about moving on. People on the forum are allowed to think about this stuff and have opinions.