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, 09:12:59 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: New update from Suzanne on FB  (Read 23533 times)
Badger
Private Forum Access
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 129



« Reply #40 on: May 21, 2018, 06:03:07 pm »

DLM, GCLI is centrally run.  I cannot help it if you don't like the passage I used; I don't like it either.  The GCLI article was last reviewed in 2017; it was downloaded recently from gccweb.com.  John Hopler is in charge of the GCLI materials, perhaps you should direct your concerns to him rather than lecturing me that this isn't part of your church's cannon.

I'm glad you feel such justification would not work for your Pastors.  May I remind you, the reason you are on this forum currently is because there are multiple allegations of your pastors perpetuating and covering up abuse in your church.  Are you really sure you "know" your pastors as well as you think?
Strange, I thought I was agreeing with you on the point not lecturing you, but if you'd rather just argue that's cool too. On your other point, yeah, I'm positive.

Sorry I missed that point DLM.  Glad we can agree on something.

I've learned not to put my trust in men, especially GCx pastors.  Your choice though.
Logged
GodisFaithful
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 328



« Reply #41 on: May 21, 2018, 07:35:47 pm »

DV,

If you look back at the Facebook post by Loey, I believe she is the one Scout is talking about in her update. She said she came forward years ago.

What is sad for me is that I know her. She was a very close friend of mine years ago. I am in shock, and cannot believe that Mark took advantage of her. I am really sickened by it and by the cover up. She is not at all the type who would make up a story, and the pastors for sure would have known that, although if Mark denied it they would probably believe Mark over her. However, then why the cover up?

This is just ugly, and so bad for Evergreen, and getting uglier as more women come forward. If Evergreen and the BOT do not handle this with honesty and integrity and humility, they are going to be in so much trouble.

I don't get all the talk about John. This is not about John, and what he did or should have done. John was under the thumb of other pastors. Even if he squeeled, would anything have been accomplished? The women are being believed now because so many have come forward. This is about what Mark Darling did with women over and over  that was inappropriate and very damaging and about how other pastors who knew about some of it handled it. (Victim A and Loey came to Brent about it.) It is about the truth coming to light. It's about how really bad things can happen when clergy are given way too much authority and not enough accountability. This is really icky stuff under the guise of a pastor "helping" women who were vulnerable. Why do people think it is ok for a pastor to ask about private sexual data? It is absolutely not ok, not at all.

The women coming forward are not lying. They are not sleazy. They are credible and believable. They are not making stuff up. They should never have been treated this way by a pastor. I am really shook up about it because I know so many of them.

Logged
Rebel in a Good Way
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 455



« Reply #42 on: May 21, 2018, 07:45:14 pm »

GodisFaithful, I am sorry you are dealing with finding out about these new levels of betrayal.  You being affected by this is a good example of Christian love--we should all be hurt when others are abused. But of course it's different when it's personal and I'm sorry you're shaken up.

For all of the attacks on Suzanne and her supporters, I just want to point out that THIS IS WHAT IT TOOK for even a hint of truth to come out. I didn't know it would go this deep and this ugly (however I'm not surprised) but without Suzanne and others pushing and not backing down, ECC/GCC leadership would just be able to continue their dark mess. 

Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #43 on: May 21, 2018, 08:39:45 pm »

DV,

If you look back at the Facebook post by Loey, I believe she is the one Scout is talking about in her update. She said she came forward years ago.

What is sad for me is that I know her. She was a very close friend of mine years ago. I am in shock, and cannot believe that Mark took advantage of her. I am really sickened by it and by the cover up. She is not at all the type who would make up a story, and the pastors for sure would have known that, although if Mark denied it they would probably believe Mark over her. However, then why the cover up?

This is just ugly, and so bad for Evergreen, and getting uglier as more women come forward. If Evergreen and the BOT do not handle this with honesty and integrity and humility, they are going to be in so much trouble.

I don't get all the talk about John. This is not about John, and what he did or should have done. John was under the thumb of other pastors. Even if he squeeled, would anything have been accomplished? The women are being believed now because so many have come forward. This is about what Mark Darling did with women over and over  that was inappropriate and very damaging and about how other pastors who knew about some of it handled it. (Victim A and Loey came to Brent about it.) It is about the truth coming to light. It's about how really bad things can happen when clergy are given way too much authority and not enough accountability. This is really icky stuff under the guise of a pastor "helping" women who were vulnerable. Why do people think it is ok for a pastor to ask about private sexual data? It is absolutely not ok, not at all.

The women coming forward are not lying. They are not sleazy. They are credible and believable. They are not making stuff up. They should never have been treated this way by a pastor. I am really shook up about it because I know so many of them.



I'm so sorry this happened and I agree completely with everything you said.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509



« Reply #44 on: May 22, 2018, 08:02:30 am »

Yesterday I left this comment on the above referenced post:

"Just to make sure I comprehend, the victim did not receive any money, nor did she sign an NDA? In other words, this was an agreement between the pastors (who knew the details of the allegations) in which they agreed to keep this matter confidential. In other words, no one in the congregation would know because the pastors were sworn to silence, in other words a cover up? The victim is free to speak or not speak as she chooses. Is that correct?"

This morning Suzanne replied with:

"Linda, I do not believe that this particular victim signed an NDA or received money. I have not directly asked her that but the fact that she contacted me and told me what Mark did to her would indicate to me that she is not bound by an NDA or confidentiality agreement. Yes, the pastors knew the details of the allegations at that time. Joan Harris confirmed this. No one in the congregation would know about what Mark Darling did to this victim because of the signed NDA that the pastors signed saying they would not talk about it. And yes, this victim is free to speak or not speak as she chooses."

According to her reply:

- Joan Harris has a copy of the NDA (or at least has seen it/is aware of it)
- The pastors who signed knew the details of the allegations
- The congregation was not informed of the allegations
- The allegations were over something MD did to a woman





Logged

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

Posts: 238



« Reply #45 on: May 22, 2018, 08:54:43 am »

Yesterday I left this comment on the above referenced post:

"Just to make sure I comprehend, the victim did not receive any money, nor did she sign an NDA? In other words, this was an agreement between the pastors (who knew the details of the allegations) in which they agreed to keep this matter confidential. In other words, no one in the congregation would know because the pastors were sworn to silence, in other words a cover up? The victim is free to speak or not speak as she chooses. Is that correct?"

This morning Suzanne replied with:

"Linda, I do not believe that this particular victim signed an NDA or received money. I have not directly asked her that but the fact that she contacted me and told me what Mark did to her would indicate to me that she is not bound by an NDA or confidentiality agreement. Yes, the pastors knew the details of the allegations at that time. Joan Harris confirmed this. No one in the congregation would know about what Mark Darling did to this victim because of the signed NDA that the pastors signed saying they would not talk about it. And yes, this victim is free to speak or not speak as she chooses."

According to her reply:

- Joan Harris has a copy of the NDA (or at least has seen it/is aware of it)
- The pastors who signed knew the details of the allegations
- The congregation was not informed of the allegations
- The allegations were over something MD did to a woman

The total and complete accusation was that Mark hugged her at a karate class.
Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 995



« Reply #46 on: May 22, 2018, 08:57:40 am »

The total and complete accusation was that Mark hugged her at a karate class.

I'm not challenging your information, but I'm wondering how you know this.

Also, I'm wondering why a mere hug rates a big-guns reaction like an NDA.
Logged
Digital Lynch Mob
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238



« Reply #47 on: May 22, 2018, 09:14:46 am »

The total and complete accusation was that Mark hugged her at a karate class.

I'm not challenging your information, but I'm wondering how you know this.

Also, I'm wondering why a mere hug rates a big-guns reaction like an NDA.

Do we really know there was an NDA? Does that really make sense? Does it make sense that John obeyed it if one did exist?
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509



« Reply #48 on: May 22, 2018, 09:25:43 am »

Quote from: DLM
The total and complete accusation was that Mark hugged her at a karate class.

Quote from: DLM
Do we really know there was an NDA? Does that really make sense? Does it make sense that John obeyed it if one did exist?

Hold your horses.

In reply to my comment about the exchange on Suzanne's Timeline about the NDA, you said with great authority that the "TOTAL and COMPLETE" accusation was a hug at a karate class.

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?


Logged

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

Posts: 238



« Reply #49 on: May 22, 2018, 09:37:25 am »

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.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 09:46:51 am by Digital Lynch Mob » Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509



« Reply #50 on: May 22, 2018, 09:49:13 am »

Quote from: DLM
In my question about John I'm simply questioning the logic of the story and specifically an NDA. I've heard one does not exist.

So, if I'm hearing you correctly, you are saying that all that happened to the woman involved in this situation (the situation that may or may not involve an NDA) was that she was hugged at a karate class?

Again, I repeat Huldah's question.

How do you know that the "total and complete" accusation was a karate class hug?

Is it common for people in leadership to pass along information like this?
Logged

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

Posts: 60



« Reply #51 on: May 22, 2018, 10:00:22 am »

Are we talking about the NDA that was for, depending on the day, $15,000, $50,000, $60,000 or $1 million, or is there a new allegation re: NDAs? Do people not have access to a scanner?
Logged
Heidi
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49



« Reply #52 on: May 22, 2018, 10:11:17 am »

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. 
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509



« Reply #53 on: May 22, 2018, 10:30:29 am »

Quote from: arrogantcat
Are we talking about the NDA that was for, depending on the day, $15,000, $50,000, $60,000 or $1 million, or is there a new allegation re: NDAs? Do people not have access to a scanner?

The NDA in question is the one that was referenced in Darth Vader's post that started this thread when he/she copied and pasted Suzanne's Facebook timeline post about the latest person alleging abuse by MD. You might want to go back and read the first post on this thread to get up to speed on what the thread is about.

There is a mention of an NDA signed by some ECC pastors (specifically, according to the post, Doug Patterson, Brent Knox, Ken Johnson, Charlie Meyer, and Mark Bowen) stating they would not reveal the details of what Mark Darling did to this woman.

About the money.

The $1,000,000 came from the Evergreen reply in response to Suzanne's tweet in which ECC, unwisely (by their own admission) said that not only was Suzanne fully heard on the matter of abuse, but "within a year of the completion of the mediation process, John and Suzanne accepted ECC's sponsorship and gift of over $1,000.000 to enable them to carry out their dream of planting a church in Berlin..." As it turns out, Suzanne and John did not receive a million dollars, but rather it was a capital campaign in which all the funds went to GCM for the church plant, and the vanDycks raised all their support.

So, your mention of a million dollars is a red herring.

Next, about the $15,000. Here is what Suzanne said about that. It's in the MD Pastor Who Abused Me thread, post number 53.

Quote from: Scout
John reminded me, after we did not sign the buyout for our silence, Evergreen Church did give us $15,000 to help us financially as John was job hunting.  There was no written or verbal buying of silence with this money.  Though the attempt to buy our silence was disturbing, we were grateful for the $15,000 that they gave us with no strings attached.  (added to this post on 1.13.18).

Finally, my understanding is that Suzanne originally thought the hush money offer with NDA regarding the vanDycks was $60,000, but it has been confirmed to her that the amount on the offer was $50,000. I'll leave it at that.

Bottom line:

-The vanDycks did not sign an NDA.

-According to Suzanne's comment (which I posted this morning), the NDA, as far as she knows, did not involve the woman in question, nor did it involve a payout (read her comment and decide for yourself). The NDA seems to be an agreement among some ECC pastors that they would not disclose to anyone what these accusations were. Again, read the original post on this thread and draw your own conclusions.


Logged

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

Posts: 60



« Reply #54 on: May 22, 2018, 11:28:54 am »

Quote
I asked my brother John van Dyck, if he had signed a NDA in the 1990's. He said "YES he had."

So he did sign it? What did he sign? Does he have access to a scanner? If not, he can come right to my house. We have one.


Quote
The $1,000,000 came from

I know where it came from. She was asked why the church would offer $1M to keep silence, and she answered, accepting the premise of the question.
Quote
Finally, my understanding is that Suzanne originally thought the hush money offer with NDA regarding the vanDycks was $60,000, but it has been confirmed to her that the amount on the offer was $50,000. I'll leave it at that.

Yeah, that's plausible.
Logged
Linda
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2509



« Reply #55 on: May 22, 2018, 11:42:33 am »

Quote from: arrogantcat
I know where it came from. She was asked why the church would offer $1M to keep silence, and she answered, accepting the premise of the question.

Where did she say this?

Quote from: arrogantcat
So he did sign it? What did he sign? Does he have access to a scanner? If not, he can come right to my house. We have one.

You raise an interesting question. If you were a new pastor, under the GC system and a more senior pastor required you to sign an NDA, would you do it? I would like to think I wouldn't, however, I am familiar with a situation of sexual impropriety on the part of a ministry leader many years ago (Non GCC leader) where the sin was handled "in house". This was not a church, but a non-profit.

Sometimes the way these things work is more subtle than you would imagine. The scenario would be something like ministry leader is caught doing something wrong. Ministry leader weeps and is very repentant. The leadership team places the ministry leader on some type of short leave. Because the leadership feels the person is very sorry for their sin and will never do it again, the ministry team decides to tell no one and spare the sinner and his family the humiliation and spare the ministry the cost of looking bad to contributors.

I could see how someone wanting to please a leader and not bring attention to the sin of a repentant person would sign a statement like that.

Then, the issue becomes one of keeping one's word and not suffering any financial consequences of breaking an NDA.

That said, from what Suzanne mentioned, Joan Harris if familiar with this document, so no need to scan and get you a copy.

Logged

Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable gift.
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 995



« Reply #56 on: May 22, 2018, 01:06:29 pm »

DLM, you haven't yet answered my question. How do you know for certain we're talking about a hug in a karate class, nothing more, full stop? You stated this as a fact. What is your source?
Logged
Digital Lynch Mob
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238



« Reply #57 on: May 22, 2018, 02:49:04 pm »

DLM, you haven't yet answered my question. How do you know for certain we're talking about a hug in a karate class, nothing more, full stop? You stated this as a fact. What is your source?
I decline to answer. However, it is the truth.
Logged
DarthVader
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 202



« Reply #58 on: May 22, 2018, 02:52:58 pm »

Not to nitpick and I respect your right to protect your source...but it seems strange to say "I know the story behind NDA woman was a hug at karate" and then question if there was an NDA..did you not know that there was an NDA? or is it possible they are two separate incidents..there hasn't exactly been a shortage of women making allegations..
Logged
Digital Lynch Mob
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 238



« Reply #59 on: May 22, 2018, 03:06:11 pm »

Not to nitpick and I respect your right to protect your source...but it seems strange to say "I know the story behind NDA woman was a hug at karate" and then question if there was an NDA..did you not know that there was an NDA? or is it possible they are two separate incidents..there hasn't exactly been a shortage of women making allegations..

It is the same incident and the same person. There are four alleged victims here. None of them claim sexual contact.
1. Suzanne (claimed an inappropriate hug and conversation)
2. Natalie (said it was "not sexual abuse" - also called victim A)
3. Loey (was hugged at a karate class with both families right there - also called NDA victim)
4. Victim C (claimed inappropriate conversation took place)

Mark denies any wrongdoing. We don't know the context of any of these conversations. As for being alone at a park, there were many single's events at Fort Snelling Park where these conversations took place. They were not alone other than possibly at a separate picnic table for a brief time.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2018, 03:07:56 pm by Digital Lynch Mob » Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


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