Ravi the rapist — another sexual exploitation exposed

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.

[blonde]

I liked Ravi.

Now it sends shivers up my spine this revelation:

https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2021/february/ravi-zacharias-rzim-investigation-sexual-abuse-sexting-rape.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=article&fbclid=IwAR3jQGS_EsTr9qv7rEP1sCMFq_x7oEwyFYdx3ifLK-5iC90o1kGnHXIDywo

[Janet Easson Martin]

This section (below) from CT’s Report on the Ravi Zacharias sexual misconduct investigation findings and his cover-up is especially important to me as it highlights those who are willing to stand alone to tell the truth.  It made me think firstly of Suzanne and her bravery; and how others followed in telling their stories because of her.  Of course, I am in no way referring to this particular women’s reciprocation in the seduction as being similar; only that she told the truth about a Christian leader who denied her allegations, and thus was not believed by his supporters.


In addition to confirming previous reports of abuse at Zacharias’s spas, the new report corroborated four-year-old allegations by Lori Anne Thompson, the Canadian woman who says Zacharias manipulated her into sending him sexually explicit texts and photos. Her case was the first sexual scandal related to Zacharias to go public, and it inspired other victims to come forward.

Zacharias had sued Thompson in 2017, claiming that her lawyer’s letter to the RZIM board alleging sexual abuse was actually an elaborate attempt at extortion. The board wrote on Thursday that “we believe Lori Anne Thompson has told the truth about the nature of her relationship with Ravi Zacharias.”

Investigators interviewed other witnesses who “recounted similar conduct” as Thompson’s allegations and found a six-year-long pattern of text messaging with other women before and after her.

[Huldah]

It appears that Richard Dawkins was aware of Ravi's fake academic credentials as early as 2015. Unfortunately, the church didn't care. The C&MA didn't revoke his preaching license, and Moody Radio continued to air his programs (as indeed they did even after the first known victims released Ravi's self-incriminating emails).

Some predators appear to be very, very good at choosing their victims. Ravi, for instance, knew that many Christians feel somewhat defensive about our faith being considered anti-intellectual. Professionals in the physical sciences almost universally reject our belief in young-earth creationism. In the soft sciences like psychology, things we consider sinful are classified as normal, healthy variations of human behavior, and we're vilified for upholding our standards. And we get mocked for believing in our "imaginary friend." Ravi knew that some of us longed to have our beliefs validated by a hero with impeccable academic credentials. Ravi led us to believe that he was that hero, and most of us never doubted him. It certainly never occurred to me that anyone would lie so blatantly about something that could be so easily disproven, much less anyone who seemed so spiritual and sincere.

As a sexual predator, he seems to have selected victims who were especially vulnerable. Low-paid, low-status massage workers, some of whom were brought to the US from foreign countries where women tolerate abuse in silence due to cultural shame. And Lori Anne Thompson, not poor, not from an Asian culture, but a lifelong victim of abuse and exploitation, which she disclosed to Ravi early in their friendship. She recently made a video in which she acknowledges that she was wrong to accept Ravi's advances. However, she also explains that "compliance" with abusers (her word for it) has been her lifelong survival strategy, since she was first molested as a small child. Even though I wish she had responded differently to Ravi's advances, I consider her to be truly a victim and I feel genuinely sorry for her.

Her story is grim reminder that sexual abuse leaves deep, painful, lifelong scars on the victims. It is not a trivial offense. I wish we could get more of our evangelical leaders to understand what a heinous, harmful thing it is, especially those who want to sweep it under the rug so they can pretend their ministries are all shiny and perfect.

[PietWowo]

I find it abhorrent what was done.... I think God used Ravi inspite of what he did. Of course, he uses anyone of us in spite of what we did or are....

One huge issue these days is pornography. I understand that 70% of Evangelical men watch pornography regularly.... 50% of Evangelical pastors do too.... It's horrific. Pornography IS human trafficking. Most if not all of the actors in those videos and pictures are forced to do this by violence.... Many of them get very beaten up. Watching pornography is most likely participating in rape.... It's horrific....

The sad thing is that most ministries dealing with this topic, only emphasize the viewer as the victim and there is truth to it. But the men and even more the women are victims more than anything else....

[Linda]

https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/you-are-one-step-away-from-complete?fbclid=IwAR3dweJAPkPy1T4HlPznQKKSCE_DOpi-1maIBRMbkxZ0YndrUuUSIU3Tf2I

This piece by David French is helpful in understanding the dynamic that allows abuse like this to happen and continue for years.

He links the 26 page letter from the RZIM PR person, Ruth Malhotra, to the chairman of the board in which she documents meetings she attended as the Thompson RICO lawsuit and subsequent NDA situation was unfolding and as the spa allegations came forward.

The victims were lied about. They and those suggesting an investigation was necessary were accused of everything from slander to insanity. It's all there. Happened at ECC on a very small scale (in terms of size of ministry) with Suzanne and the victims and those supporting their right to be heard. It happened with Willow Creek. And, now it's happened with RZIM.

It brought back a lot of memories of 2018. The 26 page letter reveals a similar pattern. They even accused people of making up the women and brought up Sanballat and Tobiah.

ECC as far as I know, has never apologized directly to the women and has never taken back their words of rebuke to those supporting their right to be heard. At least some (not all and not the family) at RZIM have done that which is to their credit.

Very sad on so many levels for so many years.

[Huldah]

ECC as far as I know, has never apologized directly to the women and has never taken back their words of rebuke to those supporting their right to be heard.

I still have some of my sermon notes from back in my Solid Rock days. In one of those sermons, we were told that after Paul got saved, he didn't go around apologizing to the Christians he had persecuted. It was implied that apologizing was a waste of time, and a failure to obey Phillipians 3:13, "but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead."

[PietWowo]

https://frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/you-are-one-step-away-from-complete?fbclid=IwAR3dweJAPkPy1T4HlPznQKKSCE_DOpi-1maIBRMbkxZ0YndrUuUSIU3Tf2I


ECC as far as I know, has never apologized directly to the women and has never taken back their words of rebuke to those supporting their right to be heard. At least some (not all and not the family) at RZIM have done that which is to their credit.

If you don't know, you really shouldn't be saying this....  That whole situation has never been properly dealt with.... Maybe ECC should apologize to Mark Darling...

[Linda]

If you don't know, you really shouldn't be saying this....  That whole situation has never been properly dealt with.... Maybe ECC should apologize to Mark Darling...

I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you on this, but am going to make a statement.

I was called a liar, I was called a vulgar name, and I was threatened with a slander lawsuit on this very forum. Most of these insults were from an employee of ECC. Never got an apology. So, I do know.

ECC "elders" preached sermons discrediting the women who came forth. Some ECC members and at least one employee suggested Suzanne was making up the women. ECC never publicly retracted those statements of rebuke.

The fact is that an independent investigation by someone hired by ECC found enough evidence to remove MDs ordination.

RZIM totally botched the handling of Ravi's abuse, but they are trying to figure out and do the right thing. One of the things they have done is apologize for badmouthing the whistleblowers. ECC never did that.

[Huldah]

Linda, I totally agree with you.

Further, ECC already had every reason to discipline Mark, given that he failed to meet their original accountability requirements all those years ago when Suzanne first reported him. When the accusations resurfaced, they practically bent over backwards to accommodate him by bringing in an attorney to investigate him. Mark personally owes apologies to LOT of people: the women, his family and supporters, the church members whose donations went to pay for the attorney, and the people of this forum.

[Janet Easson Martin]

Well said, Linda.  

There is something so unchristian about wronging someone in word and deed and never offering an apology.  It seems God is ESPECIALLY concerned about believers wronging each other and never apologizing or righting wrongs.  In fact, he is looking more for an APOLOGETIC HEART as a sacrifice than an outward performance of service to him, according to Matthew 5:23-24.  


“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift”.    

Matthew 5:23-24

If RZIM Ministries would have gone on as usual without extending a PUBLIC apology to Ravi’s victims and those they even pursued with a slanderous lawsuit; then their ministry would seem to carry an empty message.  

I personally don’t think that God approves of GCC leaders and churches carrying on as usual when they have spiritually (and otherwise) abused their members.  He may possibly consider their “service” to Him vanity in view of the many offenses against the people of God.  The greatest gift they can bring to God is a truly heartfelt apology toward the offended, and recompense in necessary measure.


If anyone is interested here are insightful words about this scripture from Barne’s Notes Commentary.

Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar ... - The Pharisees were intent only on the external act in worship. They looked not at all to the internal state of the mind. If a man conformed to the external rites of religion, however much envy, and malice, and secret hatred he might have, they thought he was doing well. Our Saviour taught a different doctrine. It was of more consequence to have the heart right than to perform the outward act. If, therefore, says he, a man has gone so far as to bring his gift to the very altar, and should remember that anyone had anything against him, it was his duty there to leave his offering and go and be reconciled. While a difference of this nature existed, his offering could not be acceptable. He was not to wait until the offended brother should come to him; he was to go and seek him out, and be reconciled. So now the worship of God will not be acceptable, however well performed externally, until we are at peace with those that we have injured. "To obey is better than sacrifice," 1 Samuel 15:22. He that comes to worship his Maker filled with malice, and hatred, and envy, and at war with his brethren, is a hypocritical worshipper, and must meet with God's displeasure. God is not deceived, and he will not be mocked.

Thy gift - Thy sacrifice. What thou art about to devote to God as an offering.

To the altar - The altar was situated in front of the temple, and was the place on which sacrifices were made. See the notes on plan, Matthew 21:12. To bring a gift to the altar was expressive of worshipping God, for this was the way in which he was formerly worshipped.

Thy brother - Any man, especially any fellow-worshipper. Anyone of the same religious society.

Hath aught - Is offended, or thinks he has been injured by you in any manner.

First be reconciled - This means to settle the difficulty; to make proper acknowledgment or satisfaction for the injury. If you have wronged him, make restitution. If you owe him a debt which ought to be paid, pay it. If you have injured his character, confess it and seek pardon. If he is under an erroneous impression, if your conduct has been such as to lead him to suspect that you have injured him, make an explanation. Do all in your power; and all you ought to do, to have the matter settled. From this we learn:

1. That, in order to worship God acceptably, we must do justice to our fellow-men.

2. Our worship will not be acceptable unless we do all we can to live peaceably with others.

3. It is our duty to seek reconciliation with others when we have injured them.

4. This should be done before we attempt to worship God.

5. This is often the reason why God does not accept our offerings, and we go empty away from our devotions. We do not do what we ought to others; we cherish improper feelings or refuse to make proper acknowledgments, and God will not accept such attempts to worship him.

[PietWowo]

If you don't know, you really shouldn't be saying this....  That whole situation has never been properly dealt with.... Maybe ECC should apologize to Mark Darling...

I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you on this, but am going to make a statement.

I was called a liar, I was called a vulgar name, and I was threatened with a slander lawsuit on this very forum. Most of these insults were from an employee of ECC. Never got an apology. So, I do know.

ECC "elders" preached sermons discrediting the women who came forth. Some ECC members and at least one employee suggested Suzanne was making up the women. ECC never publicly retracted those statements of rebuke.

The fact is that an independent investigation by someone hired by ECC found enough evidence to remove MDs ordination.

RZIM totally botched the handling of Ravi's abuse, but they are trying to figure out and do the right thing. One of the things they have done is apologize for badmouthing the whistleblowers. ECC never did that.

I don't know who called you a liar or whatever.... I haven't done that. I have looked through the documents on Mark Darling's situation and haven't found anything that would convince me that what he was accused of was true....  So, I believe that a man is innocent until proven guilty. BTW, the US law is also based on that. And a man needs to have the opportunity to defend himself in front of their accusers.

As to how employees addressed you, I'm not sure what to say, because first of all I didn't witness any of that... (Not that I'm saying that it wasn't true...)   

I do want you to know that I neither represent GCx, Mark Darling, ECC, or any organization. I'm simply reading and giving my opinion based on what I read on this forum and whether it makes sense to me. That board by the way has not accepted all of the accusations that were made against Mark Darling... It that's the case, the whole accusation seems bogus. I mean if someone lies about some parts in an accusation, I would take the entire accusation with a grain of salt. But I don't know why you would put much weight into what this board figured out.... I mean it's not like you respect the opinion of GCx elders or some organization they hire. I can't ask you to do that either. I can only ask you to respect what the Word of God says...

[Huldah]

That board by the way has not accepted all of the accusations that were made against Mark Darling... It that's the case, the whole accusation seems bogus. I mean if someone lies about some parts in an accusation, I would take the entire accusation with a grain of salt.

You've made a leap here that mustn't go unchallenged.

The board found that some of the accusations against Mark Darling were unfounded. That term means that there wasn't enough evidence either way to say whether particular allegations were true. It's not the same as saying that the accusations were untrue. Maybe they were true, or maybe they weren't, but the point is that an unfounded accusation doesn't equate to a false accusation. The board has never claimed that any of the women lied.

That means that you've merely assumed that the women are guilty of lying, even though there's no evidence that they did. Where's the assumption of innocence for them?

As to how employees addressed you, I'm not sure what to say, because first of all I didn't witness any of that... (Not that I'm saying that it wasn't true...)

If you want to know the truth, you need only go back and read through the posts made by Jeromy David Darling, who was an employee of ECC at the time. The evidence is all right here in the forum.

[PietWowo]

That board by the way has not accepted all of the accusations that were made against Mark Darling... It that's the case, the whole accusation seems bogus. I mean if someone lies about some parts in an accusation, I would take the entire accusation with a grain of salt.

You've made a leap here that mustn't go unchallenged.

The board found that some of the accusations against Mark Darling were unfounded. That term means that there wasn't enough evidence either way to say whether particular allegations were true. It's not the same as saying that the accusations were untrue. Maybe they were true, or maybe they weren't, but the point is that an unfounded accusation doesn't equate to a false accusation. The board has never claimed that any of the women lied.

That means that you've merely assumed that the women are guilty of lying, even though there's no evidence that they did. Where's the assumption of innocence for them?

As to how employees addressed you, I'm not sure what to say, because first of all I didn't witness any of that... (Not that I'm saying that it wasn't true...)

If you want to know the truth, you need only go back and read through the posts made by Jeromy David Darling, who was an employee of ECC at the time. The evidence is all right here in the forum.

Ok.... well still I'm not assigning blame to any woman of lying.... nor am I assigning blame to Mark Darling. Of course I realize that the statements are contradictory. So logically someone is not telling the truth.... However unless the two can face each other and discuss back and forth, I'm not going to assign blame. There's got to be evidence.... Because they want to keep the identity of some of those women confidential, we're just talking about one sided arguments here.... And we can't jump to conclusions.... Especially on allegations that were almost 20 years old.

Do you remember the whole thing with George Floyd, who said: "I can't breathe." Immediately many people jumped to the conclusion based on a video they saw out of context that the police officer was a racist and killed him. Then later, it came to light that George Floyd was put into the police car first. That he said there that he couldn't breathe and asked to be placed on the street.... And he was totally drugged up.... So, that put the entire thing into another light. We'll see there what happens at the court hearing.

All of this is to say that we need to hear every side and make informed judgments and not just jump to conclusions, based on one side. Now, I think it is easy to jump to conclusions against Mark on this forum, because people on this forum are generally disappointed with GCx and many come here to talk about their bad experiences.... For lack of a better word GCx has become the enemy to them.... So, what happens, they tend to cheer for anyone, who can make GCx look bad.  It's understandable, but it's hardly objective. I thoroughly dislike Nazis.... But if someone told me that the Nazis killed all of the island inhabitants in the Caribbean, I have to say that that's not true. That was Spain.

[Huldah]

Ok.... well still I'm not assigning blame to any woman of lying....

Oh, but you are:

That board by the way has not accepted all of the accusations that were made against Mark Darling... It that's the case, the whole accusation seems bogus. I mean if someone lies about some parts in an accusation, I would take the entire accusation with a grain of salt.

I don't intend to get into a lengthy argument with you about this (or anything else), but you left little doubt that you believe the women were lying. Using the word "if" is not an escape clause, since the tone and content of what you've written throughout your time on this forum makes it clear that you don't believe Mark is guilty. Of course, you're just as entitled to your opinion as we are to ours, but by the same token, you're hardly a neutral observer. You've expressed doubt about the women's integrity on multiple occasions but, to the best of my memory, never about Mark Darling. You're no more impartial than anyone else on this forum.

In addition, you've implied that Linda has no right to express an opinion on the Mark Darling situation, even though she probably has a great deal more first hand knowledge of the situation than just about anyone else here except Suzanne herself. You've also suggested that something is wrong with Janet for continuing to post here. I don't often respond to you because it frequently appears that you're just trying to provoke a response, but in this case, I stand against these thinly veiled character attacks on Janet and Linda.

[Linda]

Thanks, Janet.

Hey, PWW, I've copied an old post I wrote in 2018 for you to read. All the things you have brought up are things that were discussed ad nauseam in 2018. But here is a sampling for you. I've given you a start. Now it's time for you to do a bit of research yourself.

My post:

"One thing I might add to the mix is that ECC has been quick to imply that MD cannot speak as much as a denial, so apparently, ECC controls the social media commenting of it's employees. It is a curiosity to me, then, that they allow a current staff member, Jeromy Darling, to make rude, offensive, and discrediting personal attack comments about the women and about those of us who say we believe them. Again, the fact that "the powers that be" control the public commenting of some on staff, one could easily infer that they have no objection to the staff member posting and the fact that they have issued no disclaimer (such as the one you suggested) indicates to me that they have no problem with the comments.

To that extent, I do think ECC has followed the Willow Creek pattern of attempting to throw the women under the bus and portraying those supporting them as colluders.

Keep in mind that Jeromy, an ECC staff member and worship leader, said these things about the victims and those who support them:

To Huldah: "You've relentlessly hounded my father and my churches and this movement. You DID force me here when you embraced and spread a lie. Show me the decency of READING the entire letter, not skimming it (otherwise proving you're terrified of the truth)."

To Me: "You want what most of the other regular users on this forum have wanted for years: the humiliation of our churches."

To GodIsFaithful: "I'm sure Jesus and Paul and any number of other godly men may have appeared that way at times - you apparently haven't spent enough time in the Word as I'm only trying to model their behavior."

To Boggs: "This entire website stands as a billboard for the the loveless Christian life"

To g_prince: "I am however beginning to wonder how many pastors have been spiritually abused by their former congregants..."

On why he can violate the rules of the forum and out members: "First of all I outed a two people. Chris and Jason. Secondly, I do not recognize the owners of this website or this website itself as having any Authority in my life, Ergo I dont recognize the rules they set out. "

To me: "And for the record, when you disagree with a public figure - NO ONE EVEN NEEDS TO KNOW. The fact that you think your opinion about a pastor or politician, posted on a website, is valuable to the world is the height of hubris. You've never run a church and don't have the first idea how to. Leaving me to conclude that the only reason you continue posting on this website is for your own personal validation and self gratitude. In fact, since everyone on this site seems so interested in the latest spiritual topics and terms, let me introduce a new one here: spiritual masturbation."

About Suzanne making up the story: "I KNOW no names have been submitted because the evidence points exclusively to Suzanne making all of the victims up. "

About investigation the character of an alleged victim AND HER HUSBAND: "And for the record, this investigator is not only digging deep into my father's life, she's digging deep into John and Suzanne's."

To the group: "Since there is no Biblical basis for running a site like this I can safely assume that most users on here are either grossly ignorant or are not real Christians at all. You guys could all be out volunteering, preaching the Gospel, saving souls, doing anything other than posting here over and over again, spiritually masturbating each other in an effort to validate your self worth and your knowledge, while perpetuating (or silently approving of) disgusting lies about my father."

To me: "Linda, disagreeing isn't hate. Even I know that. You've spent more time on this website than you ever spent in a GCC church or listening to my father speak. You have reserved much of your ire for a man you barely even had any conversations with, and you've dished out all your advice and warnings having never founded or a led a church on any conceivable level. This shows empirically that you're both filled with pride AND hate while simultaneously caught up in a savior's complex the likes of which I've never seen before."

Calling Suzanne a liar: "Suzanne said that my dad asked about her and her current boyfriend's sexual positions, but she didn't have a boyfriend when she met my dad and she and John did not have sex until they were married. Know how I know that? Because Suzanne used to tease John about their wedding night. See John was a virgin. And up until they first had sex he thought women got pregnant through their belly button. I actually always found that very endearing about John and his commitment to sexual Integrity before marriage. Anyone care to unravel this lie?"

Suggesting Suzanne is mentally ill" "See either Suzanne thinks we're to stupid to catch these things, or she's struggling mentally much more than any of you realize - which one is worse?"

To me when I quoted something his dad said to Terry and I at our last private meeting. Jeromy was not present.: "Another fat stinking lie Linda. My goodness. There's enough (Ad nauseam) lies from you, just in this website, about my father, to fill a volume of defamation lawsuits. This is so fantastical and so disgusting  I don't know whether to laugh or weep but it's now your MO."

Claiming the victims are lying: "Speaking of truth, I know Suzanne, Natalie and Loey are lying not just because I know my dad so well, but because I actually know the other half of THEIR stories."

Claiming Suzanne is lying: "Of course I'm saying she's lying. I've been saying that this whole time."

Claiming Natalie wasn't abused and also mentioning her "failings": "Watching - I know Natalie wasn't abused just from reading her blog. She's redefined "abuse" to include years of "subtle" spiritual abuse and never talks about her own failings."

Evergreen, are you okay with a staff member saying these things? Because, honestly, this reflects poorly upon the leadership, the church, and the integrity of the investigation.

Jeromy, are you familiar with 1 Timothy 5:1?

"Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity."

How closely have you followed this advice from your hero Paul? Do you often rebuke your mother with harsh vulgar terms such as you have done on this forum? Or call her a liar when she quotes a conversation in which you did not participate. Do you often call your wife a liar or point out her failings publicly? Is it okay to be harsh when you are mad?

Peacemaker03, my tendency is to think that, sadly, ECC has followed the Willow Creek pattern and it will not go well for Willow Creek or Evergreen."

[PietWowo]

Thanks, Janet.

Hey, PWW, I've copied an old post I wrote in 2018 for you to read. All the things you have brought up are things that were discussed ad nauseam in 2018. But here is a sampling for you. I've given you a start. Now it's time for you to do a bit of research yourself.

My post:

"One thing I might add to the mix is that ECC has been quick to imply that MD cannot speak as much as a denial, so apparently, ECC controls the social media commenting of it's employees. It is a curiosity to me, then, that they allow a current staff member, Jeromy Darling, to make rude, offensive, and discrediting personal attack comments about the women and about those of us who say we believe them. Again, the fact that "the powers that be" control the public commenting of some on staff, one could easily infer that they have no objection to the staff member posting and the fact that they have issued no disclaimer (such as the one you suggested) indicates to me that they have no problem with the comments.

To that extent, I do think ECC has followed the Willow Creek pattern of attempting to throw the women under the bus and portraying those supporting them as colluders.

Keep in mind that Jeromy, an ECC staff member and worship leader, said these things about the victims and those who support them:

To Huldah: "You've relentlessly hounded my father and my churches and this movement. You DID force me here when you embraced and spread a lie. Show me the decency of READING the entire letter, not skimming it (otherwise proving you're terrified of the truth)."

To Me: "You want what most of the other regular users on this forum have wanted for years: the humiliation of our churches."

To GodIsFaithful: "I'm sure Jesus and Paul and any number of other godly men may have appeared that way at times - you apparently haven't spent enough time in the Word as I'm only trying to model their behavior."

To Boggs: "This entire website stands as a billboard for the the loveless Christian life"

To g_prince: "I am however beginning to wonder how many pastors have been spiritually abused by their former congregants..."

On why he can violate the rules of the forum and out members: "First of all I outed a two people. Chris and Jason. Secondly, I do not recognize the owners of this website or this website itself as having any Authority in my life, Ergo I dont recognize the rules they set out. "

To me: "And for the record, when you disagree with a public figure - NO ONE EVEN NEEDS TO KNOW. The fact that you think your opinion about a pastor or politician, posted on a website, is valuable to the world is the height of hubris. You've never run a church and don't have the first idea how to. Leaving me to conclude that the only reason you continue posting on this website is for your own personal validation and self gratitude. In fact, since everyone on this site seems so interested in the latest spiritual topics and terms, let me introduce a new one here: spiritual masturbation."

About Suzanne making up the story: "I KNOW no names have been submitted because the evidence points exclusively to Suzanne making all of the victims up. "

About investigation the character of an alleged victim AND HER HUSBAND: "And for the record, this investigator is not only digging deep into my father's life, she's digging deep into John and Suzanne's."

To the group: "Since there is no Biblical basis for running a site like this I can safely assume that most users on here are either grossly ignorant or are not real Christians at all. You guys could all be out volunteering, preaching the Gospel, saving souls, doing anything other than posting here over and over again, spiritually masturbating each other in an effort to validate your self worth and your knowledge, while perpetuating (or silently approving of) disgusting lies about my father."

To me: "Linda, disagreeing isn't hate. Even I know that. You've spent more time on this website than you ever spent in a GCC church or listening to my father speak. You have reserved much of your ire for a man you barely even had any conversations with, and you've dished out all your advice and warnings having never founded or a led a church on any conceivable level. This shows empirically that you're both filled with pride AND hate while simultaneously caught up in a savior's complex the likes of which I've never seen before."

Calling Suzanne a liar: "Suzanne said that my dad asked about her and her current boyfriend's sexual positions, but she didn't have a boyfriend when she met my dad and she and John did not have sex until they were married. Know how I know that? Because Suzanne used to tease John about their wedding night. See John was a virgin. And up until they first had sex he thought women got pregnant through their belly button. I actually always found that very endearing about John and his commitment to sexual Integrity before marriage. Anyone care to unravel this lie?"

Suggesting Suzanne is mentally ill" "See either Suzanne thinks we're to stupid to catch these things, or she's struggling mentally much more than any of you realize - which one is worse?"

To me when I quoted something his dad said to Terry and I at our last private meeting. Jeromy was not present.: "Another fat stinking lie Linda. My goodness. There's enough (Ad nauseam) lies from you, just in this website, about my father, to fill a volume of defamation lawsuits. This is so fantastical and so disgusting  I don't know whether to laugh or weep but it's now your MO."

Claiming the victims are lying: "Speaking of truth, I know Suzanne, Natalie and Loey are lying not just because I know my dad so well, but because I actually know the other half of THEIR stories."

Claiming Suzanne is lying: "Of course I'm saying she's lying. I've been saying that this whole time."

Claiming Natalie wasn't abused and also mentioning her "failings": "Watching - I know Natalie wasn't abused just from reading her blog. She's redefined "abuse" to include years of "subtle" spiritual abuse and never talks about her own failings."

Evergreen, are you okay with a staff member saying these things? Because, honestly, this reflects poorly upon the leadership, the church, and the integrity of the investigation.

Jeromy, are you familiar with 1 Timothy 5:1?

"Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity."

How closely have you followed this advice from your hero Paul? Do you often rebuke your mother with harsh vulgar terms such as you have done on this forum? Or call her a liar when she quotes a conversation in which you did not participate. Do you often call your wife a liar or point out her failings publicly? Is it okay to be harsh when you are mad?

Peacemaker03, my tendency is to think that, sadly, ECC has followed the Willow Creek pattern and it will not go well for Willow Creek or Evergreen."

Wow, Linda, you put quite a bit time into putting all of these quotes together!!! Thank you for doing this for me.

Ok, I don't know Jeremy... He could walk by me and I would have no idea, who he was.... but I want to ask you something....  Think about this logically....

Let's assume for this argument sake that Mark Darling did everything bad that he was accused off.   What would be the logical reaction of his wife and his children, especially after Mark didn't work for the Minnesota church anymore....?  I would think, they would be really angry with him.... Since the main accusation falls more in the area of sexual harassment, I doubt that his wife would divorce him, but she would rightfully so very angry at him.... Do you really think that his son (I assume Jeromy is a man's name) would go on a forum and defend his dad over and over again? Would that make any sense? Why would he even do that? Would there be anything to gain for him in doing this.

I would think that he would not want to talk about it. Maybe he wants to not dishonor his dad, but that would be one thing that he would probably prefer to not talk about.

Not only that, but Mark's whole family supports Mark. Now Mark is either an extremely good liar and deceiver, or the story is just not how it is written.... Remember it's not that difficult to deceive outsiders, harder to deceive friends, but pretty much impossible to deceive your own family. Especially not if the family is big. I.e. someone will figure it out. I know with my family, I can pretty much always tell what they are really thinking.... Because I know them so well.... Like I can look at my dad and know exactly how he feels.

So, if Mark did what Suzanne accused him of doing, Jeremy would have known.... Besides that he has shown that he really knows these people. I mean the detail of Suzanne's husband thinking that people get pregnant through their navel and him knowing that... shows that he knows what he's talking about.

As far as maybe him not being gentle or so in his answers, remember the passage of I Tim. 5:1 is written to a pastor. The purpose of the Book is to explain how to conduct oneself in the household of God. (I Tim. 3:15). Paul was strong... He was a Pharisee, what do you expect. He was a trained Rabbi.... Not exactly someone, who holds back... You can even see that in Gal 2, where he wrote about rebuking Peter in front of all.... And then Acts 23, where he confronts the High Priest... (That was a very very high title in the Jewish community. It was like talking with the President of the country... There was no higher rank as far as the Hebrews were concerned...

In fact what you have done is really prove that Mark Darling is innocent.... Thank you for making my point.... I hope this is settled now. You have made it abundantly clear that Mark Darling is innocent!!!

[Linda]

Excellent reply. You just forgot two things. Reason and logic. Other than that, it was excellent.

There are many victims when leaders fail because leaders groom not only the women, they groom their family, friends, and board members.

Back to Ravi. This is worth the listen.

https://youtu.be/PcWeZS3cnNo

[Huldah]

Let's assume for this argument sake that Mark Darling did everything bad that he was accused off.   What would be the logical reaction of his wife and his children, especially after Mark didn't work for the Minnesota church anymore....?  I would think, they would be really angry with him.... Since the main accusation falls more in the area of sexual harassment, I doubt that his wife would divorce him, but she would rightfully so very angry at him....

But how can we know that she's not angry? She has chosen (wisely, I think) never to comment publicly on the accusations. Unfortunately, that makes her a blank canvas for speculation. "If Mark were guilty, his wife would have done such and such," or, "If Mark were innocent, his wife would have done this or that." But either way, it's only speculation. This has no doubt been a horrible ordeal for her. Until she chooses to speak publicly, both sides would be wrong to draw inferences about Mark's guilt or innocence from her silence. Leave her in peace.

Do you really think that his son (I assume Jeromy is a man's name) would go on a forum and defend his dad over and over again? Would that make any sense? Why would he even do that? Would there be anything to gain for him in doing this.

Defending a guilty man makes about as much sense as accusing an innocent one. That is, we can't determine whether it's Mark or the women who are lying by speculating on a third party's motives. We can only look at the evidence, which has never been fully released. Based on what little we have seen, it's not illogical to conclude that Mark is guilty. Even his own ministry colleagues were forced to acknowledge that. Now, maybe they, and we, are wrong. But the evidence mostly goes in the direction of guilt. Either that, or the entire board of ECC conspired to frame him, risking legal repercussions in the process. Do you believe they did that?

Not only that, but Mark's whole family supports Mark. Now Mark is either an extremely good liar and deceiver, or the story is just not how it is written....

Third possibility: a family can refuse to admit the truth. I know quite a few people in the transportation department of our local school system. The school buses have cameras that monitor the behavior of the children. More than once, a driver has witnessed an act of bullying or aggression, and the act has even been caught on tape. But when the parent of the bully is called in and shown the tape, surprisingly often, they continue to deny that their Innocent Little Johnny could have done exactly what the tape caught him doing. Even though they just watched the tape of it happening. People are emotionally predisposed to support and defend their own, and sometimes they will do so even when it flies in the face of all the evidence.

PWW, you have a strong emotional investment in Mark's innocence. That's your prerogative. But face it for what it is: a bias in Mark's favor that makes you resist any other possibility. So while you're lecturing us on our bias and our lack of logic, please remember that you, too, have a log in your eye.

[PietWowo]

So, then basically what you're saying is that there is a more than 50% probability that Mark is guilty. That's still no evidence....

I've spent a huge amount of time with elders, in leaders meetings. I've lived with elders. Without going into detail, I know that structure well... I'm not going to address here whether this is a good or bad structure. But I do know what elders are like....

First of all, elders do commit sins... Elders can fall into grievous sexual sins, or any other sins. They are far from perfect.... The question is whether it makes sense for someone like Mark Darling to be guilty of what he was accused of.  Does it make sense? North Dakota can have a HUGE Blizzard that is very destructive. (Obviously even Texas can).

But North Dakota is not going to be hit by a Category 5 Hurricane.... And South Florida won't be hit by a huge snow storm. (Though in very rare occasions, it can snow there).

With that type of thinking I'm going to think about if it makes sense that Mark Darling would be guilty of what he was accused off. I think you need to conclude that he could be guilty of other things, but not what he was accused of.

Consider this:

Now, here is something to think about.... 

It's not easy for someone to become an elder in a GCx church... It's even far more difficult to become like a big national leader, who speaks at major conferences... They will guard that "treasure" with all they can...

As a result of that, they are very careful to not lose that reputation. If they fall into sexual sin, it would be very private....

I'm not going to write about the motives or who Suzzane is... I don't know her.... I'm just looking at whether the story makes sense. Just like to me it wouldn't make any sense that North Dakota got hit by a Category 5 Hurricane (maybe some left over rainstorms, but that's it).

So, the story goes as follows (correct me if I'm wrong).

-Mark as a around 40 year old elder and husband and father asked one of the younger members of his church to accompany him to a park.
GCx elders and any other leadership, like deacons, homegroup leaders are cautioned strongly against this. Of course, maybe the park wasn't a very private place. I've been to parks, which are filled with people and far from private....

-Mark finds out that this member is in a sexual relationship outside of marriage....
Normal response to that would be counseling her to get out of that... He might ask private questions, like: "How did you get into this relationship?" "Can you get out?" maybe "How often do you sleep with this man?"  But the whole goal of any of those questions would be to help her get out of a premarital sexual relationship. A good elder also would as soon as possible try to get his wife involved in the counseling.

Mark asks her to reveal to her what she sounds like during sex...
-An elder wouldn't do that.... Even though a GCx church will teach against any type of gossip and slander, they are a very close knit church... An elder wouldn't do that. An elder might fall into other private sexual sins... like internet pornography, even a sexual relationship that is mutual, but not something that could really get back to bite him... He could lose his eldership, his family, his everything.... Just like Bill Gates would never gamble away his entire fortune in one night in Las Vegas... Elders are not stupid. If he asked something like that, I would think that he has gone nuts and it would have displayed itself within his family. He might need to be placed in a psychiatric ward.... And it would have shown up all over the place...  Besides that, even a very immoral man in the world wouldn't be that interested in that aspect... they would be after something else.

Mark then hugs her for a long time while he's having an erection...
-Again an extremely stupid thing to do... He would be giving her his entire pastoral career. He's about 40 years old in the story... He's not some university male student with tons of testosterone.... She would talk about him.... Besides that how does she even know that well what she is feeling down there.... Maybe there was a pocket knife... 

Now Mark invites her to his house to listen in on him and Kathy having sex....
-Mark is not a contestant for a Jerry Springer show.... He would never do that.... It would totally destroy his marriage.... Kathy wouldn't go along with it and would probably talk with Brent and Mary Knox about it. And why would he even do that? What would be gained from that? The issue with sex before marriage is never about the sounds that people make.... (Maybe the neighbours care,) but not an elder, nor does he want to "train" her how to sound correctly... If he were to go for sexual immorality himself with this girl, he would try to sleep with her himself, not try to figure out what she sounds like or what she should sound like.  The story makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Then again, if he were a really weird pervert like that.... his family would not come to his defense.... They would at best want to go into obscurity with this. Not come onto this forum to write posts about it, create a website about it, talk to everyone about it. They would be embarrassed and ashamed....

Again the whole story to me is like the probability of a Category V hurricane hitting North Dakota....

And also again... I don't believe that elders are perfect. There are many grievous sins and weaknesses that they might have, but not that...

So, maybe there is some truth to it... It sounds like him and his family were very close friends to this young woman.... Maybe he did go to a park with her... or it could have been a very public park... Maybe he did ask her how her boyfriend sounded.... but when he said something.... Like was he angry? etc.... (not the sounds of them having sex). And maybe he said something very sarcastically or as a joke about him and his wife at some time... All put together out of context this is some totally absurd story...

I'll give you the last word...

[Huldah]

Well, I really wasn't planning to have a last word, since I laid out my case pretty thoroughly in my earlier posts. But since you offer... I can only add that your entire post boils down to, "Mark could not have done this, because he's not the kind of person who would do this." In English, we call this type of fallacy, "begging the question." Begging the question means to assume the very point that's under contention. But if you believe that Suzanne and eight other women set out on some personal vendetta against Mark, and the other leaders at ECC chose to cooperate with that vendetta even though there was no evidence (which is what you're claiming, though how can you know there was no evidence, given that the attorney's report was never publicly released?), then I suppose there's nothing anyone can say to convince you otherwise.