Update From Suzanne

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.

[OneOfMany]

What Suzanne posted on FaceBook:

"A few updates for those following my story of abuse by pastor Mark Darling and the cover up by some of the other Evergreen Church pastors.
In an earlier post, I wrote that I did meet with EC's BOT investigator last week, attorney Joan Harris. I did so after the Fox9 story aired. The Fox9 story ensured that my voice, as well as some of the other victims' voices, would be heard and not silenced.
Seventeen years ago when I confronted my abuser Mark Darling in my therapist's office, prior to the meeting, I was told by the other EC pastors what I could and could not bring up to Mark. And then when we left EC in 2003ish, a church meeting was held in which pastors Mark Bowen and Mark Darling told the congregation to not contact us, at our request (not true), and to not talk to our siblings who still attended about us leaving (not true). Both it seems to ensure I could not share my side of the story and with EC controlling the narrative.
I felt in a bind prior to the Fox9 piece airing. If I chose not to participate in EC's investigation then the BOT may say, "We ran an investigation and Suzanne would not participate." Although I have always been more than agreeable to participate in a truly independent investigation in which we collaboratively select an investigator with the findings made public. On the other hand, if I spoke with Joan, without the Fox9 piece ever airing, then the BOT could say, "Suzanne participated in the investigation and Joan found none of her claims to be true", even though Joan may have documented otherwise.
In the meeting with Joan Harris she conveyed several things that I want to make public before her report is turned over to the BOT.

1.) Joan is in possession of the letter I read to Mark Darling approximately 17 years ago in my therapist's office. Prior to that meeting the EC pastor's asked to see what I was going to say. I turned the letter over to them (which I would not have done today). It came back with things crossed off; things that they did not want me to say to Mark Darling. And Joan confirmed that the section having to do with sexual abuse was crossed off.
2.) Joan is in possession of a printed email chain in which Evergreen Church offered John and I 50K if we would not speak ill and disparagingly of Mark Darling and Evergreen. This letter did not come from Great Commission Churches as some are now saying. It was sent by EC to Greg Guevara at the GCM (now GCC) offices to look over as he was (is?) a lawyer. She confirmed that it was sent by EC with Mark Bowen's name at the bottom.

Again, I felt this information was important to make public since Joan Harris' final report will not be."

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Well I'm glad she did this. Actual physical proof of any kind will be beneficial for getting to the truth.

Curious though, it seems odd to me that she refuses to present these pieces of evidence to the public - even now. Wouldn't that be an obvious thing to do to prove her story is true? Even her supporters here have asked her for proof like this. Also, if she had this evidence all along why not agree to participate with Joan from the beginning? Seems like a slam dunk, so no reason not to be interviewed. Physical proof always wins the day.

Also, was this the letter she and John wrote and read to Mark? Because from what I've heard, Joan already has a copy of that letter. Or is it the new "letter that introduced the letter" that she added to her narrative after Jeromy confirmed possession of the first letter? I also wonder, how many of you could retrieve emails from 15 years ago? Just a thought.

Regardless, I'm sure the Pastors in question will want to review these letters and emails with Joan since they authored one and marked up the other just to ensure their authenticity.

[searching]

Something is still fishy.....I have been with ECC since 1989. The congregation was never told not to contact the Van Dyks or not to contact their siblings. Did I miss something? I was very active and involved at the time. It seems like I would have heard this. Again, I wasn't there witnessing any abuse or non abuse and don't know the final outcome of all of this. I feel bad for all involved and pray the truth comes out.

Yes, at the meeting ECC had(not an actual service), they did tell people not to contact Suzanne and John's siblings. I was there.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

"Also, if she had this evidence all along why not agree to participate with Joan from the beginning?"  Her FB post did not say SHE turned them in to Joan, only that Joan has them.  Someone else may have turned them over. 

"Jeromy confirmed possession of the first letter"  Jeromy said he has A letter.  Well, he did say he had THE letter, but really he has A letter.  Suzanne did not "add" a letter to her narrative.  She said that SHE wrote a letter to Mark about sexual abuse.  Incidentally, John also wrote a letter (about spiritual abuse), with some possible additions from Suzanne. Suzanne did not include that letter in her story, she only clarified it after Jeromy introduced its existence as "eye witness evidence" against her, claiming he had HER letter about sexual abuse that contained nothing about sexual abuse.  But, they have NEVER been the same letter, and Suzanne has not changed her story in this regard.  The "other" (spiritual abuse) letter never would have been mentioned by Suzanne had Jeromy not made his claims about it in his "The Reckoning."

"Regardless, I'm sure the Pastors in question will want to review these letters and emails with Joan since they authored one and marked up the other just to ensure their authenticity."  So, they do get to participate in the investigation, or they don't?  Does Suzanne or other accusers get to correct whatever things people have submitted about them?  Just curious what you think the process is here.

Well I'm glad she did this. Actual physical proof of any kind will be beneficial for getting to the truth.

Curious though, it seems odd to me that she refuses to present these pieces of evidence to the public - even now. Wouldn't that be an obvious thing to do to prove her story is true? Even her supporters here have asked her for proof like this. Also, if she had this evidence all along why not agree to participate with Joan from the beginning? Seems like a slam dunk, so no reason not to be interviewed. Physical proof always wins the day.

Also, was this the letter she and John wrote and read to Mark? Because from what I've heard, Joan already has a copy of that letter. Or is it the new "letter that introduced the letter" that she added to her narrative after Jeromy confirmed possession of the first letter? I also wonder, how many of you could retrieve emails from 15 years ago? Just a thought.

Regardless, I'm sure the Pastors in question will want to review these letters and emails with Joan since they authored one and marked up the other just to ensure their authenticity.

[Heidi]

Something is still fishy.....I have been with ECC since 1989. The congregation was never told not to contact the Van Dyks or not to contact their siblings. Did I miss something? I was very active and involved at the time. It seems like I would have heard this. Again, I wasn't there witnessing any abuse or non abuse and don't know the final outcome of all of this. I feel bad for all involved and pray the truth comes out.

Yes they did- It was in the church meeting after John and Suzanne resigned from Ministry and were leaving Berlin.  sometime in the fall of 2003 maybe. It was a special meeting for anyone interested in why John had resigned and was leaving ministry.
 It was at the Oak Grove evergreen location.  Mark Darling and Mark Bowen lead the meeting.  I was there.  Believe me, it was said.  I was very bothered that it was said.  I talked to Mark Bowen about it at the time also.

Heidi

[Heidi]

Well I'm glad she did this. Actual physical proof of any kind will be beneficial for getting to the truth.

Curious though, it seems odd to me that she refuses to present these pieces of evidence to the public - even now. Wouldn't that be an obvious thing to do to prove her story is true? Even her supporters here have asked her for proof like this. Also, if she had this evidence all along why not agree to participate with Joan from the beginning? Seems like a slam dunk, so no reason not to be interviewed. Physical proof always wins the day.

Also, was this the letter she and John wrote and read to Mark? Because from what I've heard, Joan already has a copy of that letter. Or is it the new "letter that introduced the letter" that she added to her narrative after Jeromy confirmed possession of the first letter? I also wonder, how many of you could retrieve emails from 15 years ago? Just a thought.

Regardless, I'm sure the Pastors in question will want to review these letters and emails with Joan since they authored one and marked up the other just to ensure their authenticity.

Doesn't this all seem odd?

[DarthVader]

"Also, if she had this evidence all along why not agree to participate with Joan from the beginning?"  Her FB post did not say SHE turned them in to Joan, only that Joan has them.  Someone else may have turned them over. 

"Jeromy confirmed possession of the first letter"  Jeromy said he has A letter.  Well, he did say he had THE letter, but really he has A letter.  Suzanne did not "add" a letter to her narrative.  She said that SHE wrote a letter to Mark about sexual abuse.  Incidentally, John also wrote a letter (about spiritual abuse), with some possible additions from Suzanne. Suzanne did not include that letter in her story, she only clarified it after Jeromy introduced its existence as "eye witness evidence" against her, claiming he had HER letter about sexual abuse that contained nothing about sexual abuse.  But, they have NEVER been the same letter, and Suzanne has not changed her story in this regard.  The "other" (spiritual abuse) letter never would have been mentioned by Suzanne had Jeromy not made his claims about it in his "The Reckoning."

"Regardless, I'm sure the Pastors in question will want to review these letters and emails with Joan since they authored one and marked up the other just to ensure their authenticity."  So, they do get to participate in the investigation, or they don't?  Does Suzanne or other accusers get to correct whatever things people have submitted about them?  Just curious what you think the process is here.

Well I'm glad she did this. Actual physical proof of any kind will be beneficial for getting to the truth.

Curious though, it seems odd to me that she refuses to present these pieces of evidence to the public - even now. Wouldn't that be an obvious thing to do to prove her story is true? Even her supporters here have asked her for proof like this. Also, if she had this evidence all along why not agree to participate with Joan from the beginning? Seems like a slam dunk, so no reason not to be interviewed. Physical proof always wins the day.

Also, was this the letter she and John wrote and read to Mark? Because from what I've heard, Joan already has a copy of that letter. Or is it the new "letter that introduced the letter" that she added to her narrative after Jeromy confirmed possession of the first letter? I also wonder, how many of you could retrieve emails from 15 years ago? Just a thought.

Regardless, I'm sure the Pastors in question will want to review these letters and emails with Joan since they authored one and marked up the other just to ensure their authenticity.

Rebel I would assume the pastors alleged to have done wrong would be questioned by Joan as part of the investigation wouldn’t they? And if evidence that contradicts something they earlier told Joan comes in I would expect them to be asked by Joan why there seems to be evidence contradicting what they said.  This feels like what Joan should be doing, no?

[Linda]

Something is still fishy.....I have been with ECC since 1989. The congregation was never told not to contact the Van Dyks or not to contact their siblings. Did I miss something?

Yes, you did miss something. You apparently missed the meeting searching, heidi, and I were at.

Yes, at the meeting ECC had(not an actual service), they did tell people not to contact Suzanne and John's siblings. I was there.

It was at the Oak Grove evergreen location.  Mark Darling and Mark Bowen lead the meeting.  I was there.  Believe me, it was said.

I was there, too. Mark B and Mark D presided over a leader's meeting at Oak Grove that was to explain the rather sudden departure of the van Dycks and many others from the Rock Berlin. They had to because they had done that huge capital campaign (you know the one where they gifted the van Dycks with $1,000,000 to pursue their dream...oh, wait, that money went to GCM and the van Dycks had to raise support.) Anyway, they had to explain why the Berlin thing fell apart a couple years after raising what I recall was more like $750,000 than a million (but nevertheless a huge amount).

Mark B did most of the talking. Mark D said very little.

My "takeaway" was: We should have never let the van Dycks go to Berlin in the first place. It's very common when missionaries come back from the field that they no longer attend their sending church. And, this is a hard time for them, they are processing a lot of things, so it would be really unwise to contact them. Oh, and by the way, don't talk to the Millers or Anfinsons about this, as you can imagine they are in a really tough spot.

That is not a quote, but the point was very clearly made. Don't talk to the van Dycks, Millers, or Anfinsons.

Also, was this the letter she and John wrote and read to Mark?

No, this was NOT the letter John sent to Mark that Jeromy mentioned at the beginning of the Reckoning. Suzanne even explained this in a reply on March 12th in response to Jeromy's assertion that sexual abuse had not been brought up to the pastors or discussed with the counselor. Suzanne writes:

"Some following my story of abuse by pastor Mark Darling have asked if John's letter, that Mark's son Jeromy has been referring to (as proof that I did not bring up sexual abuse 17 years ago), is the same statement I wrote to Mark. No, John and I each wrote a separate statement to Mark. His son Jeromy posted on my wall last week that they have a copy of my husband John's statement to Mark, and that there is no reference to sexual abuse or sexual misconduct. And that is correct. John's letter did not contain any allegations of sexual abuse because he was not sexually abused by Mark. We have the letter as well. Seventeen years ago when I confronted Mark in my therapist's office with pastor Mark Bowen present, I read a statement to Mark Darling. In that letter, I spoke of some of the sexual abuse I endured from Mark. After that, John gave Mark the above referenced letter he wrote."

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Good question.  I'm not sure how much back and forth is going on.  And it might depend on who turned the documents in (it could be a pastor or someone implicating themselves, which would be quite convincing).  But at some point she needs to make a judgment call based on everything she's heard/seen.  So if whoever allegedly tried to censor Suzanne's prepared statement denies the documents are real, Joan will have to determine who is telling a falsehood (the person who turned in the documents or the one denying it). Of course, maybe everyone is being honest and then she doesn't have to decide.

I think I responded to the way that DLM phrased it, that the pastors would verify the authenticity.  Joan might consult them,  but she will/ should be the one who determines what is valid.  Just meaning the revelation of truth doesn't rest with pastors being accused of a cover up saying a document is authentic or not.

"Also, if she had this evidence all along why not agree to participate with Joan from the beginning?"  Her FB post did not say SHE turned them in to Joan, only that Joan has them.  Someone else may have turned them over. 

"Jeromy confirmed possession of the first letter"  Jeromy said he has A letter.  Well, he did say he had THE letter, but really he has A letter.  Suzanne did not "add" a letter to her narrative.  She said that SHE wrote a letter to Mark about sexual abuse.  Incidentally, John also wrote a letter (about spiritual abuse), with some possible additions from Suzanne. Suzanne did not include that letter in her story, she only clarified it after Jeromy introduced its existence as "eye witness evidence" against her, claiming he had HER letter about sexual abuse that contained nothing about sexual abuse.  But, they have NEVER been the same letter, and Suzanne has not changed her story in this regard.  The "other" (spiritual abuse) letter never would have been mentioned by Suzanne had Jeromy not made his claims about it in his "The Reckoning."

"Regardless, I'm sure the Pastors in question will want to review these letters and emails with Joan since they authored one and marked up the other just to ensure their authenticity."  So, they do get to participate in the investigation, or they don't?  Does Suzanne or other accusers get to correct whatever things people have submitted about them?  Just curious what you think the process is here.

Well I'm glad she did this. Actual physical proof of any kind will be beneficial for getting to the truth.

Curious though, it seems odd to me that she refuses to present these pieces of evidence to the public - even now. Wouldn't that be an obvious thing to do to prove her story is true? Even her supporters here have asked her for proof like this. Also, if she had this evidence all along why not agree to participate with Joan from the beginning? Seems like a slam dunk, so no reason not to be interviewed. Physical proof always wins the day.

Also, was this the letter she and John wrote and read to Mark? Because from what I've heard, Joan already has a copy of that letter. Or is it the new "letter that introduced the letter" that she added to her narrative after Jeromy confirmed possession of the first letter? I also wonder, how many of you could retrieve emails from 15 years ago? Just a thought.

Regardless, I'm sure the Pastors in question will want to review these letters and emails with Joan since they authored one and marked up the other just to ensure their authenticity.

Rebel I would assume the pastors alleged to have done wrong would be questioned by Joan as part of the investigation wouldn’t they? And if evidence that contradicts something they earlier told Joan comes in I would expect them to be asked by Joan why there seems to be evidence contradicting what they said.  This feels like what Joan should be doing, no?

[Linda]

Also, was this the letter she and John wrote and read to Mark? Because from what I've heard, Joan already has a copy of that letter. Or is it the new "letter that introduced the letter" that she added to her narrative after Jeromy confirmed possession of the first letter?

Jeromy posted The Reckoning on March 8, 2018. The narrative that Suzanne added a letter to her narrative is a false narrative because nearly two months earlier (last edit on January 11, 2018), Suzanne said:

"Interestingly, leading up to this meeting, I did feel outnumbered.  The executive pastor group, which included Mark Bowen, Mark Darling, Brent Knox, Mark Bowen and John van Dyck, asked to see a written copy of what I was going to say to Mark D.  My therapist was not wild about the idea, but I did give it to them. I got the copies back and they had things crossed out and comments about how and what I could convey.  Any of the parts where I named Mark D. as 'abuser' were crossed off.  Anything having to do with sexual things were crossed off."

This is reply #25 on the thread Pastor Mark Darling–Pastor that Abused Me.

Here is a link:
http://forum.gcmwarning.com/people-and-places-of-gc/pastor-mark-darling-pastor-that-abused-me/msg14372/#msg14372

It would appear as if someone has turned in a copy of this document. Suzanne only tells us that Joan is in possession of the document. She does not tell us who gave Joan the document.

[devlin]

hey everyone. i've ben watching for months now and feel like it's time for me to try and get some clarity of my own. i've known john and suzanne from their earliest days. i'd like to humbly ask a few question without getting jumped, so here goes. people on this forum and facebook have been asking suzanne to present her other letter showing the hush money and she never responded. would she be willing to share them now that they've apprently turned up? she also said at the end of her post today that she wanted to let everyone know these new developments since the results won't be made public but since she knows whatever she told joan is confidential isn't that just pulling the wool over all our eyes? since none of us will ever know what she actually told joan, she's free to say whatever she wants online and make claims about giving things to joan but we'll never actually know. she's gladly posted emails joan sent her and heidi's heavily redacted letter so why not post these things? am i the only one that finds this strange?

lastly, i've noticed you guys tend to ignore jessica's posts outright. after all that girl has been through i think she at least deserves the respect of being acknowledged.

[Greentruth]

hey everyone. i've ben watching for months now and feel like it's time for me to try and get some clarity of my own. i've known john and suzanne from their earliest days. i'd like to humbly ask a few question without getting jumped, so here goes. people on this forum and facebook have been asking suzanne to present her other letter showing the hush money and she never responded. would she be willing to share them now that they've apprently turned up? she also said at the end of her post today that she wanted to let everyone know these new developments since the results won't be made public but since she knows whatever she told joan is confidential isn't that just pulling the wool over all our eyes? since none of us will ever know what she actually told joan, she's free to say whatever she wants online and make claims about giving things to joan but we'll never actually know. she's gladly posted emails joan sent her and heidi's heavily redacted letter so why not post these things? am i the only one that finds this strange?

lastly, i've noticed you guys tend to ignore jessica's posts outright. after all that girl has been through i think she at least deserves the respect of being acknowledged.

Welcome more light, I also watched from Jan until end of March or so, came on just to share the truth to what I also experinced. Here I am two months later wondering how this whole side can have such polar experince and stances. I know what I experienced and took part in, and as you, no one told me not to contact  John and Suzanne. I agree with everything, especially the fact we don’t and won’t know theDarling side for a few more days. Seems to be a huge effort by Suzanne and a few followers to manipulate and control the process. To me that is the most telling in this whole matter. Something is very suspicious in all this. They love the circular talk, around and around until someone says something they can jump them for. Thanks for sharing

[Huldah]

lastly, i've noticed you guys tend to ignore jessica's posts outright. after all that girl has been through i think she at least deserves the respect of being acknowledged.

Mostly Jessica is posting her own observations of Mark as a father, so there's nothing open to dispute or discuss. The one thing no one has accused Mark of is being an unloving father.

EDIT TO ADD: Besides, it's apparent how deeply, personally painful this is to her. Sometimes it seems kinder to just read without commenting than to risk a reply that will only make it worse.

[Linda]

since none of us will ever know what she actually told joan, she's free to say whatever she wants online and make claims about giving things to joan but we'll never actually know.

Suzanne did not claim that she had given any documents to Joan. The claim Suzanne made was that Joan had those documents in her possession.

Read carefully. She said:

"1.) Joan is in possession of the letter I read to Mark Darling approximately 17 years ago in my therapist's office. Prior to that meeting the EC pastor's asked to see what I was going to say. I turned the letter over to them (which I would not have done today). It came back with things crossed off; things that they did not want me to say to Mark Darling. And Joan confirmed that the section having to do with sexual abuse was crossed off.
2.) Joan is in possession of a printed email chain in which Evergreen Church offered John and I 50K if we would not speak ill and disparagingly of Mark Darling and Evergreen. This letter did not come from Great Commission Churches as some are now saying. It was sent by EC to Greg Guevara at the GCM (now GCC) offices to look over as he was (is?) a lawyer. She confirmed that it was sent by EC with Mark Bowen's name at the bottom."

If Joan has them, and they were not turned in by Suzanne, she is unable to post them because, as we all are painfully aware, this is not a truly independent 3rd party investigation. Joan Harris cannot, by law, give Suzanne copies of those documents because of attorney client privilege.

So, careful when you put the blame on Suzanne for not posting them. Put the blame on ECC for hiring an attorney who they claim is independent, but who cannot give copies of documents to one party in the investigation.

Read the last line carefully.

Again, I felt this information was important to make public since Joan Harris' final report will not be.

I read this as Suzanne giving everyone a head's up that the specific documents in question are in Joan's possession, but the final decision as to whether or not to make them available for all to see belongs to the BOT, not Joan Harris.

[Boggs]

lastly, i've noticed you guys tend to ignore jessica's posts outright. after all that girl has been through i think she at least deserves the respect of being acknowledged.

Welcome, Devlin. I hope you find this forum helpful.

Like Huldah, I'm not going to write posts disputing Jessica's childhood or relationship with her father. Likewise, though I have engaged with Jeromy, I am not going to challenge or question anything he has written about their personal relationship. Whatever the outcome, I know this may be the most painful episode of their family's experience on this earth and I want to be sensitive to that.

[Linda]

Besides, it's apparent how deeply, personally painful this is to her. Sometimes it seems kinder to just read without commenting than to risk a reply that will only make it worse.

My thoughts exactly, Huldah.

[omelianchuk]

Actual physical proof of any kind will be beneficial for getting to the truth.

I agree. This is the sort of evidence that needs to be front and center. It's the only stuff that will get us past the power struggles over testimonial evidence. If it corroborates Suzanne's story, then ECC et al, has a lot to answer for.

[JessicaNoelDarling]

I noticed I've been mentioned a few times today so I'd like to address some points. First of all, I do actually find it telling how my posts are often evaded. I don't believe that folks are being silent because they have been trying to be sensitive to my situation, whatever that means. I think my questions have been evaded because addressing them seriously challenges the narrative that folks have been pushing. I've spoken the truth over and over again about my fathers observed character as a man, not just a father, since I'm not sure you can separate the two, not to mention I lived with him through my mid to late 20's so these aren't things I've observed just from a childhood perspective. Some are trying to isolate this apparent flaw in their narrative by saying, "Well, he was just a good father is all." ....What?? Just a good father? That makes no sense gut check in logic. How can you be a wonderful father, a faithful husband, a passionate and caring pastor....but a pseudo abuser/manipulator on the side (that only scratches the surface of the nonsense). So I'd have to conclude that either some are turning their brains off, or I'm being ignored because it's hard to reconcile the narrative with the observed character of my father by pretty much everyone who actually knows him. People on this forum, you'll find out, don't actually know him! It's laughable at times watching the conspiracy theories form. So why am I on this forum you ask? Trying to prove my father's innocence? No. He is innocent and that really doesn't need to be proved. No, the reason I'm here is to ask questions for the purposes of illustrating the ridiculous nature of these claims for others to see so that they, who haven't turned their logic centers off, can see the lack of actual substance to these claims via the responses (or lack of responses) to legitimate questions. You see, many folks are peering in on this little forum because they are curious. Many of them have no context at all other than what they read online. I want to be respectful on this forum, mind you, but I'm compelled to speak the truth and if the truth makes these claims seem silly, I really can't help that. A number of times people have tried talk about me as if I am just a desperate daughter trying to salvage the reputation of my father, all the while dealing with my own pain and doubt. Lord have mercy, that couldn't be farther from the truth. Whether my dad is innocent or guilty doesn't even seem to matter on this forum as evidenced by the strategic evading of questions. This forum is very unfortunate. It's a hot mess of feelings, which is fine, but feelings have this ability to color the perspective of truth. I believe a few on this forum are outright liars, but most are people who have been hurt. I do understand that and I want you to know that I believe God cares deeply for you and is concerned about that which is causing, or has caused you pain. But please don't be misled by those who are using your pain to push a narrative that is more easily palatable because of where you have been or things you have gone through. My heart goes out to you, but consider that the so-called abuser in this story might actually be the victim.

[steadfast]

hey everyone. i've ben watching for months now and feel like it's time for me to try and get some clarity of my own. i've known john and suzanne from their earliest days. i'd like to humbly ask a few question without getting jumped, so here goes. people on this forum and facebook have been asking suzanne to present her other letter showing the hush money and she never responded. would she be willing to share them now that they've apprently turned up? she also said at the end of her post today that she wanted to let everyone know these new developments since the results won't be made public but since she knows whatever she told joan is confidential isn't that just pulling the wool over all our eyes? since none of us will ever know what she actually told joan, she's free to say whatever she wants online and make claims about giving things to joan but we'll never actually know. she's gladly posted emails joan sent her and heidi's heavily redacted letter so why not post these things? am i the only one that finds this strange?

lastly, i've noticed you guys tend to ignore jessica's posts outright. after all that girl has been through i think she at least deserves the respect of being acknowledged.

Another reason why the ECC BOT should publicly release the results of the investigation.

[steadfast]

In the meeting with Joan Harris she conveyed several things that I want to make public before her report is turned over to the BOT.

1.) Joan is in possession of the letter I read to Mark Darling approximately 17 years ago in my therapist's office. Prior to that meeting the EC pastor's asked to see what I was going to say. I turned the letter over to them (which I would not have done today). It came back with things crossed off; things that they did not want me to say to Mark Darling. And Joan confirmed that the section having to do with sexual abuse was crossed off.
2.) Joan is in possession of a printed email chain in which Evergreen Church offered John and I 50K if we would not speak ill and disparagingly of Mark Darling and Evergreen. This letter did not come from Great Commission Churches as some are now saying. It was sent by EC to Greg Guevara at the GCM (now GCC) offices to look over as he was (is?) a lawyer. She confirmed that it was sent by EC with Mark Bowen's name at the bottom.

Again, I felt this information was important to make public since Joan Harris' final report will not be."

Suzanne said that Joan Harris conveyed to her that she was in possession of those documents, not that she (Suzanne) was the one who submitted them.