Questions For Scout

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.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Much talk here about the accusations made by Scout. In light of recent information coming forward, it seems reasonable to ask these questions of the accuser.

1. Mark Darling has the letter she and John wrote him 18 years ago. Jeromy D. stated that the letter contained no reference whatsoever to sexual abuse or sexual misconduct of any kind. So Scout, did the letter reference sexual abuse?

2. We've also heard that the topic of sexual abuse never came up with her counselor. Is this true and if so, how can that be?

3. Close friends of the van Dykes at the time are on record as saying the topic of sexual abuse never came up. Is this true?

4. If these things are true, how is it that 18 years later scout's story has changed so dramatically?

5. Was John complicit in this? If he knew there was sexual abuse of his wife why did he stay in the church? Why wouldn't have have done something to protect his wife? Why didn't they bring charges against Mark?

6. In one of your somewhat graphic accusations, you say Mark invited you over so you would hear he and Kathy have sex in the basement. Since the basement wasn't where their bedroom is please explain. More importantly, are you saying Kathy was a party to this "abuse?" And do you expect us to believe that quiet Kathy has loud sex with her husband while guests are in the house?

7. Was the $60K you reference as hush money to be paid to you personally or was it a severance package for your husband who was leaving the church after a decade of being a Pastor?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jcue3qxv4bc2upk/The%20Reckoning.pdf?dl=0

[G_Prince]

Much talk here about the accusations made by Scout. In light of recent information coming forward, it seems reasonable to ask these questions of the accuser.

1. Mark Darling has the letter she and John wrote him 18 years ago. Jeromy D. stated that the letter contained no reference whatsoever to sexual abuse or sexual misconduct of any kind. So Scout, did the letter reference sexual abuse?

2. We've also heard that the topic of sexual abuse never came up with her counselor. Is this true and if so, how can that be?

3. Close friends of the van Dykes at the time are on record as saying the topic of sexual abuse never came up. Is this true?

4. If these things are true, how is it that 18 years later scout's story has changed so dramatically?

5. Was John complicit in this? If he knew there was sexual abuse of his wife why did he stay in the church? Why wouldn't have have done something to protect his wife? Why didn't they bring charges against Mark?

6. In one of your somewhat graphic accusations, you say Mark invited you over so you would hear he and Kathy have sex in the basement. Since the basement wasn't where their bedroom is please explain. More importantly, are you saying Kathy was a party to this "abuse?" And do you expect us to believe that quiet Kathy has loud sex with her husband while guests are in the house?

7. Was the $60K you reference as hush money to be paid to you personally or was it a severance package for your husband who was leaving the church after a decade of being a Pastor?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jcue3qxv4bc2upk/The%20Reckoning.pdf?dl=0

Often it takes victims of sexual assault/abuse many years to feel comfortable sharing their experience. There are often strong feelings of guilt and shame around these incidents plus tremendous fear of retaliation from their abusers, anxiety that they will lose friendships/family, and worry that no one will believe their story. Scout's decision to come forward years later is consistent with how many other survivors of sexual abuse handle the situation.

Would you believe her if she had come forward sooner?

[Digital Lynch Mob]

That's a hypothetical. She would certainly seem to be more credible if she had. She has tried this case in the most public of forums. It only seems fair that she answer some of these questions in the same public forums now that new information has come out.

[Linda]

I will not speak for Suzanne, however, here are her own words regarding Question 7.

"The first offer of payment we received from Evergreen Church was not a severance payment.  It was 60K to be given to us upon signing a document stating we would not speak ill of Evergreen Church or its pastors. In that email there was no mention of the money being used to help us start our new life as you wrote above.

Upon declining this agreement of silence, Evergeen Church did give us 15K with it's stated purpose to help us start our new life.

Two different letters sent at different times with two very different purposes." –Suzanne

[iamnotafraid]

I will not speak for Suzanne, however, here are her own words regarding Question 7.

"The first offer of payment we received from Evergreen Church was not a severance payment.  It was 60K to be given to us upon signing a document stating we would not speak ill of Evergreen Church or its pastors. In that email there was no mention of the money being used to help us start our new life as you wrote above.

Upon declining this agreement of silence, Evergeen Church did give us 15K with it's stated purpose to help us start our new life.

Two different letters sent at different times with two very different purposes." –Suzanne

Linda, since you speak with Suzanne regularly, does she have this letter (Key evidence, Any evidence: the letter about not speaking ill of Evergreen) because I'm pretty sure if they offer that as evidence to the attorney this is kind of a done deal.  Wouldn't you keep a letter like that?  I would.

[iamnotafraid]

I will not speak for Suzanne, however, here are her own words regarding Question 7.

"The first offer of payment we received from Evergreen Church was not a severance payment.  It was 60K to be given to us upon signing a document stating we would not speak ill of Evergreen Church or its pastors. In that email there was no mention of the money being used to help us start our new life as you wrote above.

Upon declining this agreement of silence, Evergeen Church did give us 15K with it's stated purpose to help us start our new life.

Two different letters sent at different times with two very different purposes." –Suzanne

Another question - I've been friends of FB with John for a long time and it's been over a year since I've seen images of he and Suzanne together...so, is his silence in all of this because they are no longer together?  That may seem personal but unfortunately this entire case is about personal things now.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

It is not unusual the returning missionaries have a difficult time upon their return. This is especially true when things didn't go so well -
 like in Berlin. Evergreen hired an agency to help the process of the van Dykes returning. It was that agency who provided the separation agreement that the van Dykes were asked to sign. In it were a myriad of things including John's agreeing to work with the other Pastors to formulate a go-forward plan for the church in Berlin...as well as an agreement to make no disparaging remarks about the church and some other typical things. This is a common practice for all severance/separation agreements - missionary work or secular. When John refused to participate, the offer was withdrawn.

[Linda]

What was the $15,000 for and how do you know so much?

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Grace and love were poured out on the van Dkyes. $15K was the cost to ship all of their belongings home from Germany.

[UserNumber123]

...how do you know so much?

The issue of the so-called "hush money" was brought up during one of our last leaders meetings at EC Lakeville. I would assume every Evergreen location talked about it so it could somewhat common knowledge by now.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Linda, I found this comment you made in another post. Are you following your own advice?

I repeat my advice (in bold and red because I feel very strongly about it!).

Always hear both sides of the story. Never, no matter what their reason, trust anyone who gives their side and tells you not to get the other side.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

From scouts own post, she said that church had given them $15,000 once they came back to the US, she said it was a gift to help them get their life started again here, as it took some time for John to find a job.  Scout said that gift was appreciated.
[/quote]

This isn't exactly true. It was not a gift but specifically to pay for their belongings to be shipped home.

[Linda]

I stand by my comment about getting both sides.

That’s all I am asking for here. I would like to see a TRANSPARENT investigation where both sides of this are investigated and the results are fully disclosed.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

She has her little band of decommissioned groupies and Facebook Pharisees who do the talking for her. I've not seen her answer a single direct question.

[G_Prince]

She has her little band of decommissioned groupies and Facebook Pharisees who do the talking for her. I've not seen her answer a single direct question.

Or maybe she just doesn't want to talk to you....take a hint?

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Cute Prince. Beyond this forum the questions haven't come from me. Even her "supporters" have tried getting some answers from her to no avail. She's been pretty free with the accusations - she just doesn't seem to have answers when asked to support her claims.

[G_Prince]

She has her little band of decommissioned groupies and Facebook Pharisees who do the talking for her. I've not seen her answer a single direct question.

Or maybe she just doesn't want to talk to you....take a hint.

she does not answer anyone's questions.  An occasional thank you, or restating the nearly the exact  same words and verbiage over and over again...currently it is the "3rd party private investigator" issue she brings up.  She has been shown some evidence that is fully contrary to her story of abuse 17 years ago, but she still won't talk.  And John will not speak up on this either, and he was there.  None of this seem odd or fishy to you?

Isn't the situation being investigated by a third party? Why would anyone talk about the details if there is an ongoing investigation?

The questions we should be asking are: what was Mark's relationship with her like? did he have similar relationships with other women? How does he treat women in general?

[bourneforHim]

She doesn't answer questions.  No.  She has retained a lawyer who may have advised her to keep communications limited.  As far as any investigation goes, the only one to date that I know of is being conducted by a lawyer retained by Evergreen Community Church.  Suzanne is not responding as this is a confidential investigation with the results being owned by Evergreen and their attorney. It includes non-disclosure of the results on the part of Suzanne.  There have been attempts to pass this off as a neutral 3rd party investigation which it obviously is not.  Suzanne has responded, though.  She has called for a faith based 3rd party such as Grace to conduct the investigation.  That I know of, there has not been a response to this plan from Mark Darling or Evergreen.

[jeromydaviddarling]

She doesn't answer questions.  No.  She has retained a lawyer who may have advised her to keep communications limited.  As far as any investigation goes, the only one to date that I know of is being conducted by a lawyer retained by Evergreen Community Church.  Suzanne is not responding as this is a confidential investigation with the results being owned by Evergreen and their attorney. It includes non-disclosure of the results on the part of Suzanne.  There have been attempts to pass this off as a neutral 3rd party investigation which it obviously is not.  Suzanne has responded, though.  She has called for a faith based 3rd party such as Grace to conduct the investigation.  That I know of, there has not been a response to this plan from Mark Darling or Evergreen.

She never responded to anything, before she claimed she retained a lawyer. Incidentally, she has no civil case and no criminal case. None. No lawyer in their right mind would take this case for anything other than to shake down my dad for money. They would ask

"Do you have any physical evidence?" No.

"Do you have any eyewitnesses?" No.

"Was this in the last 6 years, before the statute of limitations was reached?" No.

"Do you have any other victims? Yes, 7. "Oh ok, what are their names?" C and A.

"What? Ok. Well does Mark have anyone willing to vouch for him?" Yes, about 20,000 or so.

"What, what? Are you serious? Um, I can't help you."

The ONLY person that has a case here is my dad - for slander and libel. Which is likely the only reason Suzanne has retained an attorney.