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
June 28, 2022, 08:42:13 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Investigation Findings and Board Action  (Read 15690 times)
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509



« Reply #20 on: July 01, 2018, 03:52:43 pm »

Bank fraud?

You have GOT to be kidding me.

What does that have to do with anything?

Logged

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

Posts: 202



« Reply #21 on: July 01, 2018, 03:56:30 pm »

Searching why don’t you ask Suzanne yourself if you know her personally about the financial fraud of her business ? Which I’ve heard as well. I’m sure Joan discovered it while investigating everything. Do you know her personally? Why is she so quite on social media all of a sudden? because she was exposed by Joan to be lying about the physical allegations? my theory is she acted more like a surrogate for the victims that Joan was able to verify as having credible allegations against Mark? I would assume the darling family feels betrayed by gcc and thats why they have all decided to leave as an act of support for their father.
You sound like an inaugural member of Mark & Jeromy’s new church. Is that where you are “moving on now” to?
Logged
Phoenix
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 62



« Reply #22 on: July 01, 2018, 04:00:34 pm »

Searching why don’t you ask Suzanne yourself if you know her personally about the financial fraud of her business ? Which I’ve heard as well. I’m sure Joan discovered it while investigating everything. Do you know her personally? Why is she so quite on social media all of a sudden? because she was exposed by Joan to be lying about the physical allegations? my theory is she acted more like a surrogate for the victims that Joan was able to verify as having credible allegations against Mark? I would assume the darling family feels betrayed by gcc and thats why they have all decided to leave as an act of support for their father.
Nice account name... swooping in for a parting shot?
I know a victim who also feels betrayed.
Logged
Gracetoyou
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 21



« Reply #23 on: July 01, 2018, 04:19:06 pm »

Who knows if it’s all made up, you can say anything in forums like this when there’s a ghost behind the screen name... I could be a catholic Jesuit trying to infiltrate this forum and cause chaos for all you know...but for real look into financial fraud into your friend Suzanne.
Logged
Barb
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65



« Reply #24 on: July 01, 2018, 04:46:23 pm »

Yes, Gracetoyou, you can say virtually anything out here behind a ghost name.

Let’s stick to the FACT that Joan and the BoT found Mark Darling guilty of inappropriate sexual conversations with FIVE  women. That should grieve you and virtually everyone reading this. No apology has been given to any of the victims to my understanding (I have spoken to some of them). That should grieve everyone. 
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509



« Reply #25 on: July 01, 2018, 04:46:37 pm »

Has ECC personally contacted the women and personally apologized yet for inappropriate contact by an elder that apparently some elders knew about? Has there been any attempt at making amends?  Or, was this morning all a show?
Logged

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

Posts: 252



« Reply #26 on: July 01, 2018, 05:02:57 pm »

No contact from what I am told. I have asked those I know.

I plan to write the BOT and Brent Knox to say that if an annual review does not include the members then it is not helpful nor valid.
Logged
Heidi
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49



« Reply #27 on: July 01, 2018, 07:30:12 pm »

Your next comment was questioning whether or not an NDA actually exists (you know, the NDA in which the "total and complete accusation was that Mark hugged her at a karate class", that NDA) followed by criticizing John for obeying the non-existent NDA.

So much to process.

And, I repeat Huldah's question.

How do you know all this?
In my comment about John, I'm simply questioning the logic of this story and specifically the logic of the existence of an NDA. I have heard one does not exist.


You have heard a NDA does NOT EXIST?    Well it does, so you have been lied to, along with many of us.

 I asked my brother John van Dyck, if he had signed a NDA in the 1990's. He said "YES he had."  He did not give details.  I told him to his face that I was very upset he would have done that and that it was wrong.  I told him a lot of other things.  It was clear to him I was not happy with this being done.   If nothing inappropriate happened, why was a Non-disclosure signed?  


This stinks of a cover-up, and a huge stain on the church that Jesus loves and died for.  

The BOT also did not confirm or deny that a NDA between pastors existed.


Yes a NDA was signed. I asked my brother.   My brother John van Dyck signed it.  It was communicated to the pastors as " No big deal"  Nothing really happened and John and pastors were told it was not really a big deal.  No further questions asked. They did not have the whole story per John.  In hindsight, he said it was stupid to sign.  He admitted that to me, and regrets that he signed it.  He did not ask enough questions.  He did not talk about this NDA with Suzanne at the time.  At that time, John did not know that the same behavior had happened between Mark and her.  

John honored the NDA-



« Last Edit: July 02, 2018, 09:08:28 am by Heidi » Logged
LisaFeist
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 39



« Reply #28 on: July 01, 2018, 07:40:48 pm »

Mark darling has destroyed his own name. People want to stand up for him but at this point you cannot. Do the right thing evergreen, MD supporters, etc. he’s busted. He’s wrong. Make it right.
Logged
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« Reply #29 on: July 01, 2018, 07:54:55 pm »

I agree Heidi, Mark Darling has no one to blame but himself for his own actions.  Thank you for expounding on the NDA.  To me that is an important piece of the story that the BOT summary does not include.
Logged
Ghost
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 303



« Reply #30 on: July 01, 2018, 08:04:29 pm »

Ezeikel 26:16      All the princes of the sea will descend from their thrones, remove their robes, and strip off their embroidered garments. Clothed with terror, they will sit on the ground, trembling every moment, appalled over you..............as to have read the written biblical word one need to understand it..comprehend it..for it alone is the word of god..so i will translate it for you and as to the historical and biblical perspective..........Ezekiel 26:16   you who are arrogant and self righteous and act as if you are a godly prince of wealth and fame..there is no fortification (defense) when the judgement of god is upon you..you will be stripped of your status and you will never be great again and will sit in a state of shame and disgrace ..your grief  will be so great..you cry and cry..for you have been broken..and you will walk in the ruins of your own destruction...
Logged
Ghost
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 303



« Reply #31 on: July 01, 2018, 08:05:12 pm »

2 Corinthians 11:13-15    For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.   


Revelations 2:2   I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false


No matter how twisted the teaching, no matter how publicly shamed the church may feel over the exposé of an unethical leader, no matter how dark the days become, no matter how helpless we may feel in guarding gospel doctrine and preserving gospel-worthy lives, we have this great sustaining hope: Jesus knows how to rescue the godly.
Logged
G_Prince
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417



« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2018, 06:17:26 am »


Yes a NDA was signed.



Hi Heidi, just a reminder that we can't use the real names of people on this board without their consent (see forum rules). Please edit or remove this post. thanks.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2018, 09:27:24 am by G_Prince » Logged

Here's an easy way to find out if you're in a cult. If you find yourself asking the question, "am I in a cult?" the answer is yes. -Stephen Colbert
searching
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 56



« Reply #33 on: July 02, 2018, 06:27:52 am »

I did, I called her and asked her. I love how when people have nothing else to say they make up information and it amazes me how much information people “know” from Joan.

Searching why don’t you ask Suzanne yourself if you know her personally about the financial fraud of her business ? Which I’ve heard as well. I’m sure Joan discovered it while investigating everything. Do you know her personally? Why is she so quite on social media all of a sudden? because she was exposed by Joan to be lying about the physical allegations? my theory is she acted more like a surrogate for the victims that Joan was able to verify as having credible allegations against Mark? I would assume the darling family feels betrayed by gcc and thats why they have all decided to leave as an act of support for their father.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509



« Reply #34 on: July 02, 2018, 07:04:55 am »

“the investigation does support the fact that Mark Darling, while holding a position of authority, engaged in inappropriate conduct. . . .” —Investigator’s report

I would be interested in knowing what comes after the word “conduct”.

I think the women who experienced the inappropriate conduct have a right to know what the “. . .” replaces.

I also am astonished that no one has contacted the victims/recipients/survivors of this inappropriate conduct by a man in a “position of authority” who was also a pastor. This is not being handled well and it is quite obvious that ECC doesn’t fully understand how bad this is.
Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Peacemaker03
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 23



« Reply #35 on: July 02, 2018, 08:58:54 am »

As a member of ECC, I gave myself 24 hours to digest, and here are my thoughts on the findings, by topic from the update on their site:

1)  The whole change to stress the phrase "physical sexual abuse" is troubling, as i didn't take much from any of the accusations from Scout, Victim A, Victim C, or others that the accusations were based in anything "physical".  Perhaps discussion around questionable hugs, but beyond that, the accusations had very little to do with what I would call "physical sexual abuse".  I would assume this phrase was used, as it is one that has a legal definition, so easier to decide if actions meet that legal definition.  So essentially, the finding say that there was not enough evidence to prove the change of "physical sexual abuse", which to me isn't surprising as that wasn't really what the victims were charging.  You could also point out that MD was found not guilty of larceny and arson, but I'm not sure it would be applicable to the situation.  I would have preferred if the finding had more comments on whether if found MD to be at fault in the areas of spiritual abuse, emotional abuse, or  abuse of power.  I understand that these likely don't have legal definitions, so perhaps more difficult for Joan to report on, but she could present the facts, and the BOT could decide for themselves.   Even though these forms of abuse are not criminal in the legal sense of the word, I would argue they are unacceptable for a pastor.

2)  Again in this point, they want to stick to that "physical sexual abuse" phrase.  I think a better discussion would be around knowledge of  similar abuse and/or inappropriate behavior accusations against MD over the years.  How many woman have made similar accusations?  How many pastors knew about these accusations?  Was the BOT ever brought in on these accusations?  Has there ever been NDA's signed by members of ECC over similar accusations against MD?  None of these questions were really answered, so not exactly the openness and transparency I was hoping for.  Furthermore, the only other pastor that they did call out was Mark Bowen, where the report says he knew about three separate women who made troubling accusations against MD.  He knew about three women, and we don't know of any actions he took on this.  This seems like a pretty serious charge against MB, and there was no further discussion around any actions or discipline against MB for failing to take any appropriate action.

3)  They seem to want to keep the conversation around the "cover-up" accusations centered around the severance package/hush money topic.  I guess that should be sorted out, as that is a troubling subject.  But, I'm more troubled by the potential around a cover up in the sense that other pastors and/or leaders knew of accusations from multiple women of forms of abuse and inappropriate behavior against MD over the years, and took action to keep that information compartmentalized and not released to the congregation, or doing anything else to protect potential other victims or future victims.  This is more what i was hoping to learn about in the investigation of a cover up, but that was apparently outside of the scope of this investigation, which I find troubling.

4)  So here we do get the we do get the line of around "the investigation does support the fact that MD, while holding a position of authority, engaged in inappropriate conduct....", but then filters any other information and just continues with the line "the conduct included..." Combined with section 1) above, where we choose to only discuss one specific accusation that has a legally definition, and here where it's glazed over, it becomes difficult to assess how serious the findings against MD are.

Board Actions

Discipline against MD - as I discuss above, it is difficult to judge, as the key information and details about how serious the findings against MD were are filtered, you don't have enough information to judge whether the punishment was appropriate.  I'm personally of the opinion that if he was found to be guilty of these accusations of forms of abuse, continued to deny any truth to them, and wasn't willing to engage in any form of repentance, I believe he should be fired, as he is no longer qualified for his position.  But again, without more details from the full report, it's hard to judge the BOT's decision here.

Discipline against any others - there was essentially none.  Given the information shown that MB knew about three women who brought accusations, I would have to entertain the possibility that there should be some form of discipline against him.  But again, the topic of who knew what and when, seemed to be outside the scope of this investigation, which is troubling because if the charge is a cover up, the topic of who knew what and when seems to be of vital importance.  But again, we don't have that information to difficult to judge the BOT's decision.

Note B - Very unfortunate that no form of the full report will be released.  It's been discussed that a version without names could have been prepared by Joan, but the BOT doesn't seem to have any interest in that.  I know that SVD has called for the full release, but we of course don't know the opinion of the other women.  I would say that maybe it would be right to ask the other women if they would sign off on the release, and if they would, why then would you not release it.  Is the BOT legit that they feel the need to protect the identity of the fourteen who come forward in the investigation?  Maybe?  Is the BOT also attempting to protect further outrage over specific items that was in the report that would not reflect well on the church or certain leaders?  We'll never know, which is unfortunate. 

So what is my overall opinion of the finding.  It's difficult, as I don't feel like much was revealed.  As such, I'm forced to say my personal opinion of the finding is that they are incomplete, and lacking in the openness and transparency I was expected from my church.
Logged
Heidi
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49



« Reply #36 on: July 02, 2018, 09:15:08 am »


Yes a NDA was signed. I asked my brother.   My brother John van Dyck signed it.  It was communicated to the pastors as " No big deal"  Nothing really happened and John and pastors were told it was not really a big deal.  No further questions asked. They did not have the whole story per John.  In hindsight, he said it was stupid to sign.  He admitted that to me, and regrets that he signed it.  He did not ask enough questions.  He did not talk about this NDA with Suzanne at the time.  At that time, John did not know that the same behavior had happened between Mark and her. 

John honored the NDA-

 So- why was a non-disclosure ever signed?



Hi Heidi, just a reminder that we can't use the real names of people on this board without their consent (see forum rules). Please edit or remove this post. thanks.
Logged
G_Prince
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 417



« Reply #37 on: July 02, 2018, 09:28:04 am »

Thanks Heidi
Logged

Here's an easy way to find out if you're in a cult. If you find yourself asking the question, "am I in a cult?" the answer is yes. -Stephen Colbert
Heidi
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49



« Reply #38 on: July 02, 2018, 09:30:14 am »


Yes a NDA was signed. I asked my brother.   My brother John van Dyck signed it.  It was communicated to the pastors as " No big deal"  Nothing really happened and John and pastors were told it was not really a big deal.  No further questions asked. They did not have the whole story per John.  In hindsight, he said it was stupid to sign.  He admitted that to me, and regrets that he signed it.  He did not ask enough questions.  He did not talk about this NDA with Suzanne at the time.  At that time, John did not know that the same behavior had happened between Mark and her. 

John honored the NDA- I found out after the Fox 9 news report who the victim was, after she contacted Suzanne. 

 So- why was a non-disclosure ever signed?Huh?
Was Brent phlegmatic with that decision???  He made action steps to have a non-disclosure signed.  That does not seem phlegmatic to me.  I see it as a cover-up. 

The woman who made the accusation against Mark Darling was credible.
 
maybe that is why a non-disclosure needed to be signed. 
 Mark did not get help, a non-disclosure was signed and the church went on.

 
As a member of ECC, I gave myself 24 hours to digest, and here are my thoughts on the findings, by topic from the update on their site:

1)  The whole change to stress the phrase "physical sexual abuse" is troubling, as i didn't take much from any of the accusations from Scout, Victim A, Victim C, or others that the accusations were based in anything "physical".  Perhaps discussion around questionable hugs, but beyond that, the accusations had very little to do with what I would call "physical sexual abuse".  I would assume this phrase was used, as it is one that has a legal definition, so easier to decide if actions meet that legal definition.  So essentially, the finding say that there was not enough evidence to prove the change of "physical sexual abuse", which to me isn't surprising as that wasn't really what the victims were charging.  You could also point out that MD was found not guilty of larceny and arson, but I'm not sure it would be applicable to the situation.  I would have preferred if the finding had more comments on whether if found MD to be at fault in the areas of spiritual abuse, emotional abuse, or  abuse of power.  I understand that these likely don't have legal definitions, so perhaps more difficult for Joan to report on, but she could present the facts, and the BOT could decide for themselves.   Even though these forms of abuse are not criminal in the legal sense of the word, I would argue they are unacceptable for a pastor.

2)  Again in this point, they want to stick to that "physical sexual abuse" phrase.  I think a better discussion would be around knowledge of  similar abuse and/or inappropriate behavior accusations against MD over the years.  How many woman have made similar accusations?  How many pastors knew about these accusations?  Was the BOT ever brought in on these accusations?  Has there ever been NDA's signed by members of ECC over similar accusations against MD?  None of these questions were really answered, so not exactly the openness and transparency I was hoping for.  Furthermore, the only other pastor that they did call out was Mark Bowen, where the report says he knew about three separate women who made troubling accusations against MD.  He knew about three women, and we don't know of any actions he took on this.  This seems like a pretty serious charge against MB, and there was no further discussion around any actions or discipline against MB for failing to take any appropriate action.

3)  They seem to want to keep the conversation around the "cover-up" accusations centered around the severance package/hush money topic.  I guess that should be sorted out, as that is a troubling subject.  But, I'm more troubled by the potential around a cover up in the sense that other pastors and/or leaders knew of accusations from multiple women of forms of abuse and inappropriate behavior against MD over the years, and took action to keep that information compartmentalized and not released to the congregation, or doing anything else to protect potential other victims or future victims.  This is more what i was hoping to learn about in the investigation of a cover up, but that was apparently outside of the scope of this investigation, which I find troubling.

4)  So here we do get the we do get the line of around "the investigation does support the fact that MD, while holding a position of authority, engaged in inappropriate conduct....", but then filters any other information and just continues with the line "the conduct included..." Combined with section 1) above, where we choose to only discuss one specific accusation that has a legally definition, and here where it's glazed over, it becomes difficult to assess how serious the findings against MD are.

Board Actions

Discipline against MD - as I discuss above, it is difficult to judge, as the key information and details about how serious the findings against MD were are filtered, you don't have enough information to judge whether the punishment was appropriate.  I'm personally of the opinion that if he was found to be guilty of these accusations of forms of abuse, continued to deny any truth to them, and wasn't willing to engage in any form of repentance, I believe he should be fired, as he is no longer qualified for his position.  But again, without more details from the full report, it's hard to judge the BOT's decision here.

Discipline against any others - there was essentially none.  Given the information shown that MB knew about three women who brought accusations, I would have to entertain the possibility that there should be some form of discipline against him.  But again, the topic of who knew what and when, seemed to be outside the scope of this investigation, which is troubling because if the charge is a cover up, the topic of who knew what and when seems to be of vital importance.  But again, we don't have that information to difficult to judge the BOT's decision.

Note B - Very unfortunate that no form of the full report will be released.  It's been discussed that a version without names could have been prepared by Joan, but the BOT doesn't seem to have any interest in that.  I know that SVD has called for the full release, but we of course don't know the opinion of the other women.  I would say that maybe it would be right to ask the other women if they would sign off on the release, and if they would, why then would you not release it.  Is the BOT legit that they feel the need to protect the identity of the fourteen who come forward in the investigation?  Maybe?  Is the BOT also attempting to protect further outrage over specific items that was in the report that would not reflect well on the church or certain leaders?  We'll never know, which is unfortunate.  

So what is my overall opinion of the finding.  It's difficult, as I don't feel like much was revealed.  As such, I'm forced to say my personal opinion of the finding is that they are incomplete, and lacking in the openness and transparency I was expected from my church.


[/quo
Hi Heidi, just a reminder that we can't use the real names of people on this board without their consent (see forum rules). Please edit or remove this post. thanks.
Logged
Watching
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 30



« Reply #39 on: July 02, 2018, 09:48:30 am »

Being unable to attend the New Hope service yesterday, I was curious to hear the recorded message.  I'm profoundly saddened and honestly, somewhat angered after listening, to hear no mention of the investigation and findings.  Unless that was given in an unrecorded announcement prior to Mark's message.  Urban Refuge recorded their message - my gratitude to Andy for his compassion and for acknowledging the victims.  Bloomington recorded theirs.  Why not New Hope?!   From New Hope's online recording it appears this was not even addressed.  Yet Doug Patterson was a part of this whole mess way back when allegations were first shared by SVD.  I am trying to process all of this and the next steps for me. It's not looking good.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


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