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.

[araignee19]

Also, everyone keeps ignoring my posts..


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.

Jessica, thank you for being polite and not attacking people in personal ways through this whole process. I have a much greater respect for someone who defends in this way than those who justify horrible words as "righteous anger" or something like that. I have not personally responded to your posts because I don't typically see any actual questions to respond to. Can you clarify what you are asking? What is it in this post that you would like a response to?  Thanks

[JessicaNoelDarling]

Also, everyone keeps ignoring my posts..


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.

Jessica, thank you for being polite and not attacking people in personal ways through this whole process. I have a much greater respect for someone who defends in this way than those who justify horrible words as "righteous anger" or something like that. I have not personally responded to your posts because I don't typically see any actual questions to respond to. Can you clarify what you are asking? What is it in this post that you would like a response to?  Thanks

Thanks you for the acknowledgment in your response. I suppose if you see nothing to respond to then maybe my last post was meant for someone else / others. I made a number of statements that go against the common rhetoric from those who are so adamantly against my dad. I'm asking for critical thinking on the part of those who oppose my dad since there is a lot of mental gymnastics one has to do in order defend that position in light of the evidence.

With regards to "righteous anger", I simply encourage you to learn more about the person exhibiting that because I do believe there is definitely a time for anger. Anger is not a sin. For instance, if we find out that the accuser has been lying on many fronts, then righteous anger might be justified and maybe even called for, depending on what we're talking about. Calling someone a liar could be seen as name calling by some, but that could be without the full context. Consider that someone IS lying– the person calling out another might be telling the truth and could be stating this from actual evidence. It would be name calling if they didn't actually believe it. Instead of getting offended at any type of anger, we should be saying, why does that person believe what they are saying about another? Additionally, it goes without saying that communication through text can be wildly misinterpreted. Sometimes I'm surprised by how offended people can get when they read my brothers posts. I'm coming from a place of knowing him very well so I know how he would be saying it verbally to someone's face. It becomes even more important that we seek to understand each other first. That way, actual progress can be made in communication. It doesn't mean everyone agrees, but it can mean they understand each other and can come to a place of respectful disagreement. But honestly, from what I can see, I don't think the regulars on this forum actually want this in any way.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Okay, I have some questions based on your post...

"How can you be a wonderful father, a faithful husband, a passionate and caring pastor....but a pseudo abuser/manipulator on the side"

You've been in a ministry family for so many years, have you really never encountered someone with secret sin?  Have you never heard of a spouse having an affair and NO ONE in their family suspected anything?  Never known anyone who was caught for something and it was shocking?  Do you really think that anyone who would engage in inappropriate behavior on the side would act inappropriately in every arena of life?

You're right, it doesn't make sense in gut check logic, but it's often how it happens.  Thoughts?

Also, everyone keeps ignoring my posts..


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.

Jessica, thank you for being polite and not attacking people in personal ways through this whole process. I have a much greater respect for someone who defends in this way than those who justify horrible words as "righteous anger" or something like that. I have not personally responded to your posts because I don't typically see any actual questions to respond to. Can you clarify what you are asking? What is it in this post that you would like a response to?  Thanks

Thanks you for the acknowledgment in your response. I suppose if you see nothing to respond to then maybe my last post was meant for someone else / others. I made a number of statements that go against the common rhetoric from those who are so adamantly against my dad. I'm asking for critical thinking on the part of those who oppose my dad since there is a lot of mental gymnastics one has to do in order defend that position in light of the evidence.

With regards to "righteous anger", I simply encourage you to learn more about the person exhibiting that because I do believe there is definitely a time for anger. Anger is not a sin. For instance, if we find out that the accuser has been lying on many fronts, then righteous anger might be justified and maybe even called for, depending on what we're talking about. Calling someone a liar could be seen as name calling by some, but that could be without the full context. Consider that someone IS lying– the person calling out another might be telling the truth and could be stating this from actual evidence. It would be name calling if they didn't actually believe it. Instead of getting offended at any type of anger, we should be saying, why does that person believe what they are saying about another? Additionally, it goes without saying that communication through text can be wildly misinterpreted. Sometimes I'm surprised by how offended people can get when they read my brothers posts. I'm coming from a place of knowing him very well so I know how he would be saying it verbally to someone's face. It becomes even more important that we seek to understand each other first. That way, actual progress can be made in communication. It doesn't mean everyone agrees, but it can mean they understand each other and can come to a place of respectful disagreement. But honestly, from what I can see, I don't think the regulars on this forum actually want this in any way.

[OneOfMany]

Also, everyone keeps ignoring my posts..


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.

Jessica, thank you for being polite and not attacking people in personal ways through this whole process. I have a much greater respect for someone who defends in this way than those who justify horrible words as "righteous anger" or something like that. I have not personally responded to your posts because I don't typically see any actual questions to respond to. Can you clarify what you are asking? What is it in this post that you would like a response to?  Thanks

Thanks you for the acknowledgment in your response. I suppose if you see nothing to respond to then maybe my last post was meant for someone else / others. I made a number of statements that go against the common rhetoric from those who are so adamantly against my dad. I'm asking for critical thinking on the part of those who oppose my dad since there is a lot of mental gymnastics one has to do in order defend that position in light of the evidence.

With regards to "righteous anger", I simply encourage you to learn more about the person exhibiting that because I do believe there is definitely a time for anger. Anger is not a sin. For instance, if we find out that the accuser has been lying on many fronts, then righteous anger might be justified and maybe even called for, depending on what we're talking about. Calling someone a liar could be seen as name calling by some, but that could be without the full context. Consider that someone IS lying– the person calling out another might be telling the truth and could be stating this from actual evidence. It would be name calling if they didn't actually believe it. Instead of getting offended at any type of anger, we should be saying, why does that person believe what they are saying about another? Additionally, it goes without saying that communication through text can be wildly misinterpreted. Sometimes I'm surprised by how offended people can get when they read my brothers posts. I'm coming from a place of knowing him very well so I know how he would be saying it verbally to someone's face. It becomes even more important that we seek to understand each other first. That way, actual progress can be made in communication. It doesn't mean everyone agrees, but it can mean they understand each other and can come to a place of respectful disagreement. But honestly, from what I can see, I don't think the regulars on this forum actually want this in any way.

I have not seen anything in your posts to respond to. My heart goes out to you. I honestly do not see your posts as ignored but what you say in your posts are not questions or statements to debate. Your posts seem to come from your heart. I have not commented because I have not had anything intellectual to add. Maybe however I could at least let you know I hear you.

[araignee19]

Perhaps your point isn't as clear as you think it is, and that is why people are not responding. I'm sorry, but I don't know why asking for clarification would be ignored.

And I will respond by saying, "in your anger, do not sin." Righteous anger if a thing. Righteous sin because of anger is not. I think Jeromy has crossed into sin many times while posting and tried to justify it because he has a "right to be angry" and worse has been done to him and his father. I disagree.

[JessicaNoelDarling]

Perhaps your point isn't as clear as you think it is, and that is why people are not responding. I'm sorry, but I don't know why asking for clarification would be ignored.

And I will respond by saying, "in your anger, do not sin." Righteous anger if a thing. Righteous sin because of anger is not. I think Jeromy has crossed into sin many times while posting and tried to justify it because he has a "right to be angry" and worse has been done to him and his father. I disagree.

Feel free to give specific examples for discussion on where you think lines were crossed. Folks have plenty of opinions on this forum. I've made many clear points. Not everything has to be in the form of a question to spur on more conversation.

[araignee19]

Sorry, but I'm no longer engaging with or about Jeromy beyond this, as I have explained previously. If you will not clarify further what you are trying to say, I see no more reason to engage in discussion with you either. But please don't take my silence to mean I think you are right, or that I have hatred towards you or your father, or anything beyond "I tried; not sure what else to say." Have a good evening.

[KnowingGod]

For starters calling those who post on this forum as “spiritual masterbators” is where Jeromy lost years of credibility to me personally, having known him for some time before we left. I would also say on the flip side the thousands of emails sent to your father and family by someone on this forum is harassment and that person should be banned. Unfortunately there’s a disconnect with current loyal GCC memebrs to those who have left including personal friends from our old GCC church that shared experiences of spiritual abuse that automatically get labeled as “bitter,” “gossips,” etc. and it’s just not true. As a Christian I still love your family and none of the us ever prayed for the destruction of your father but for the truth in all of this and we are personally letting the legal process play out and will wait to hear what the hired attorney for GCC concludes with the investigation. Boundaries did in my opinion get crossed from the personal testimony’s I’ve heard first hand from close friends about certain topics of personal matters ( that I will not share here) while under the council of Mark. I’m sorry if that’s extremely hard to hear but it’s in my opinion a product of the authoritative culture GCC still teaches that was taught by Jim McCotter to Mark and Brent while they were under his “shepparding” in Ames before being sent here. Those are my thoughts and I will be signing off until the investigation is over. Peace to all.

[JessicaNoelDarling]

Okay, I have some questions based on your post...

"How can you be a wonderful father, a faithful husband, a passionate and caring pastor....but a pseudo abuser/manipulator on the side"

You've been in a ministry family for so many years, have you really never encountered someone with secret sin?  Have you never heard of a spouse having an affair and NO ONE in their family suspected anything?  Never known anyone who was caught for something and it was shocking?  Do you really think that anyone who would engage in inappropriate behavior on the side would act inappropriately in every arena of life?

You're right, it doesn't make sense in gut check logic, but it's often how it happens.  Thoughts?

Also, everyone keeps ignoring my posts..


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.

Jessica, thank you for being polite and not attacking people in personal ways through this whole process. I have a much greater respect for someone who defends in this way than those who justify horrible words as "righteous anger" or something like that. I have not personally responded to your posts because I don't typically see any actual questions to respond to. Can you clarify what you are asking? What is it in this post that you would like a response to?  Thanks

Thanks you for the acknowledgment in your response. I suppose if you see nothing to respond to then maybe my last post was meant for someone else / others. I made a number of statements that go against the common rhetoric from those who are so adamantly against my dad. I'm asking for critical thinking on the part of those who oppose my dad since there is a lot of mental gymnastics one has to do in order defend that position in light of the evidence.

With regards to "righteous anger", I simply encourage you to learn more about the person exhibiting that because I do believe there is definitely a time for anger. Anger is not a sin. For instance, if we find out that the accuser has been lying on many fronts, then righteous anger might be justified and maybe even called for, depending on what we're talking about. Calling someone a liar could be seen as name calling by some, but that could be without the full context. Consider that someone IS lying– the person calling out another might be telling the truth and could be stating this from actual evidence. It would be name calling if they didn't actually believe it. Instead of getting offended at any type of anger, we should be saying, why does that person believe what they are saying about another? Additionally, it goes without saying that communication through text can be wildly misinterpreted. Sometimes I'm surprised by how offended people can get when they read my brothers posts. I'm coming from a place of knowing him very well so I know how he would be saying it verbally to someone's face. It becomes even more important that we seek to understand each other first. That way, actual progress can be made in communication. It doesn't mean everyone agrees, but it can mean they understand each other and can come to a place of respectful disagreement. But honestly, from what I can see, I don't think the regulars on this forum actually want this in any way.

You can say this about almost anyone. Saying something is possible is a terrible platform to make your case. It's possible bacon could rain from the sky, but that doesn't make it plausible. The most simpler explanation is almost always the correct one. On every level, my father fits no profile that would fit the conspiracy theory put forth. For as long as I can remember, and my siblings can attest, my father doesn't have unaccounted time in his schedule. He's an open book and extremely transparent. My father wouldn't be cunning enough to pull of what is being stated about him, not to mention, why? You really think there is a reasonable motive? My dad cares so much about his job, and takes it so seriously. It took him a long time to become a pastor. You really think he'd disqualify himself for a cheap emotional affair? Not a chance (laughable). Also, how well do you know Suzanne? I knew her very well. I used to babysit her kids. And I'll say this again– you don't actually know my dad. He's a complete stranger to you yet you are on this site every day defending Suzanne. My guess is that for you, this ultimately has nothing to do with my dad.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

So you're not familiar with the scenario of people having hidden sin in their lives, or you are?

Are you asking why I'm involved on this forum, or are you just making observations and assumptions? 

Okay, I have some questions based on your post...

"How can you be a wonderful father, a faithful husband, a passionate and caring pastor....but a pseudo abuser/manipulator on the side"

You've been in a ministry family for so many years, have you really never encountered someone with secret sin?  Have you never heard of a spouse having an affair and NO ONE in their family suspected anything?  Never known anyone who was caught for something and it was shocking?  Do you really think that anyone who would engage in inappropriate behavior on the side would act inappropriately in every arena of life?

You're right, it doesn't make sense in gut check logic, but it's often how it happens.  Thoughts?

Also, everyone keeps ignoring my posts..


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.

Jessica, thank you for being polite and not attacking people in personal ways through this whole process. I have a much greater respect for someone who defends in this way than those who justify horrible words as "righteous anger" or something like that. I have not personally responded to your posts because I don't typically see any actual questions to respond to. Can you clarify what you are asking? What is it in this post that you would like a response to?  Thanks

Thanks you for the acknowledgment in your response. I suppose if you see nothing to respond to then maybe my last post was meant for someone else / others. I made a number of statements that go against the common rhetoric from those who are so adamantly against my dad. I'm asking for critical thinking on the part of those who oppose my dad since there is a lot of mental gymnastics one has to do in order defend that position in light of the evidence.

With regards to "righteous anger", I simply encourage you to learn more about the person exhibiting that because I do believe there is definitely a time for anger. Anger is not a sin. For instance, if we find out that the accuser has been lying on many fronts, then righteous anger might be justified and maybe even called for, depending on what we're talking about. Calling someone a liar could be seen as name calling by some, but that could be without the full context. Consider that someone IS lying– the person calling out another might be telling the truth and could be stating this from actual evidence. It would be name calling if they didn't actually believe it. Instead of getting offended at any type of anger, we should be saying, why does that person believe what they are saying about another? Additionally, it goes without saying that communication through text can be wildly misinterpreted. Sometimes I'm surprised by how offended people can get when they read my brothers posts. I'm coming from a place of knowing him very well so I know how he would be saying it verbally to someone's face. It becomes even more important that we seek to understand each other first. That way, actual progress can be made in communication. It doesn't mean everyone agrees, but it can mean they understand each other and can come to a place of respectful disagreement. But honestly, from what I can see, I don't think the regulars on this forum actually want this in any way.

You can say this about almost anyone. Saying something is possible is a terrible platform to make your case. It's possible bacon could rain from the sky, but that doesn't make it plausible. The most simpler explanation is almost always the correct one. On every level, my father fits no profile that would fit the conspiracy theory put forth. For as long as I can remember, and my siblings can attest, my father doesn't have unaccounted time in his schedule. He's an open book and extremely transparent. My father wouldn't be cunning enough to pull of what is being stated about him, not to mention, why? You really think there is a reasonable motive? My dad cares so much about his job, and takes it so seriously. It took him a long time to become a pastor. You really think he'd disqualify himself for a cheap emotional affair? Not a chance (laughable). Also, how well do you know Suzanne? I knew her very well. I used to babysit her kids. And I'll say this again– you don't actually know my dad. He's a complete stranger to you yet you are on this site every day defending Suzanne. My guess is that for you, this ultimately has nothing to do with my dad.

[DarthVader]

Okay, I have some questions based on your post...

"How can you be a wonderful father, a faithful husband, a passionate and caring pastor....but a pseudo abuser/manipulator on the side"

You've been in a ministry family for so many years, have you really never encountered someone with secret sin?  Have you never heard of a spouse having an affair and NO ONE in their family suspected anything?  Never known anyone who was caught for something and it was shocking?  Do you really think that anyone who would engage in inappropriate behavior on the side would act inappropriately in every arena of life?

You're right, it doesn't make sense in gut check logic, but it's often how it happens.  Thoughts?

Also, everyone keeps ignoring my posts..


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.

Jessica, thank you for being polite and not attacking people in personal ways through this whole process. I have a much greater respect for someone who defends in this way than those who justify horrible words as "righteous anger" or something like that. I have not personally responded to your posts because I don't typically see any actual questions to respond to. Can you clarify what you are asking? What is it in this post that you would like a response to?  Thanks

Thanks you for the acknowledgment in your response. I suppose if you see nothing to respond to then maybe my last post was meant for someone else / others. I made a number of statements that go against the common rhetoric from those who are so adamantly against my dad. I'm asking for critical thinking on the part of those who oppose my dad since there is a lot of mental gymnastics one has to do in order defend that position in light of the evidence.

With regards to "righteous anger", I simply encourage you to learn more about the person exhibiting that because I do believe there is definitely a time for anger. Anger is not a sin. For instance, if we find out that the accuser has been lying on many fronts, then righteous anger might be justified and maybe even called for, depending on what we're talking about. Calling someone a liar could be seen as name calling by some, but that could be without the full context. Consider that someone IS lying– the person calling out another might be telling the truth and could be stating this from actual evidence. It would be name calling if they didn't actually believe it. Instead of getting offended at any type of anger, we should be saying, why does that person believe what they are saying about another? Additionally, it goes without saying that communication through text can be wildly misinterpreted. Sometimes I'm surprised by how offended people can get when they read my brothers posts. I'm coming from a place of knowing him very well so I know how he would be saying it verbally to someone's face. It becomes even more important that we seek to understand each other first. That way, actual progress can be made in communication. It doesn't mean everyone agrees, but it can mean they understand each other and can come to a place of respectful disagreement. But honestly, from what I can see, I don't think the regulars on this forum actually want this in any way.

You can say this about almost anyone. Saying something is possible is a terrible platform to make your case. It's possible bacon could rain from the sky, but that doesn't make it plausible. The most simpler explanation is almost always the correct one. On every level, my father fits no profile that would fit the conspiracy theory put forth. For as long as I can remember, and my siblings can attest, my father doesn't have unaccounted time in his schedule. He's an open book and extremely transparent. My father wouldn't be cunning enough to pull of what is being stated about him, not to mention, why? You really think there is a reasonable motive? My dad cares so much about his job, and takes it so seriously. It took him a long time to become a pastor. You really think he'd disqualify himself for a cheap emotional affair? Not a chance (laughable). Also, how well do you know Suzanne? I knew her very well. I used to babysit her kids. And I'll say this again– you don't actually know my dad. He's a complete stranger to you yet you are on this site every day defending Suzanne. My guess is that for you, this ultimately has nothing to do with my dad.

With all sympathy for the pain your family is going through and appreciation for the respectful way you've approach this, you stated above "the simplest explanation is almost always the correct one, and later...bacon could rain from the sky"

The situation we are in now is a bit different though - 4-5 women have stated they had some type of interaction with Mark Darling which they came away feeling negative about; I'm being general here because the stories have been out there so no need to rehash.  So to me, as an observer who doesn't know your father or the women, in general, I'd like to believe the best of everyone, but now I have a logical conflict in trying to do that, because, at least in regards to what actually happened between Mark and these women, there really isn't a "simplest explanation" I can fall back on, rather, I have to rely on the results of the investigation being conducted. "Believing the best of both of them", in regards to these specific allegations, is just not logically possible.  If I ask myself - what is the simplest explanation - a conspiracy by 4-5 women or something else, I'm not really sure of which of those choices meets your criteria of "simplest explanation" - it's now become a lot murkier, I think then the picture you paint above.  I hope this helps and sorry if it causes any pain, & I don't fault your position in any way. My position is I hope the investigation will get at all the relevant facts and I hope ECC will release enough of the results to make us all feel ok about whatever outcome they decide is right.

[Shamednomore]

The simplest explanation to me is: multiple women had the same experience with Mark.  The women want the results made public which means they have nothing to hide.  The people who want the results kept secret have something to hide. 

[Linda]

Getting back to the topic of this thread.

What was the update from Suzanne on May 26th?

1. She met with Joan Harris last week because:

-after the Fox 9 report, she felt she would be heard and not silenced

-she wanted to leave no room for the ECC BOT to say she was uncooperative


2. She reiterated what she had said before about attempts to silence her and John:


-being told by the ECC executive board that she couldn’t discuss sexual abuse with the therapist
-ECC telling the people at the leader’s meeting to not contact John or Suzanne

-ECC telling the people at the leader’s meeting to not discuss their departure with John or Suzanne’s siblings who attended ECC


3. She informed us of some key bits of information corroborating her story:


-Joan is in possession of the document Suzanne had to submit to the ECC executive board prior to her meeting with the therapist

-Joan confirmed that this document had the edits made by the ECC executive board

-Joan confirmed that the section having to do with sexual abuse was crossed off

-Joan is in possession of a printed e-mail chain in which ECC offered John and Suzanne 50K in exchange for not speaking disparagingly of Mark D or ECC

-The 50K offer was sent by ECC and not GCM

-The GCM attorney, Greg Guevara looked over this document

-Joan confirmed that the document was signed by Mark B.





Suzanne did a follow up clarifications post on May 27th in which she said:

1. The document Joan has is the document that Suzanne was required to submit to the ECC executive board prior to her meeting with the therapist.

2. This document is not the letter John wrote that Jeromy referenced at the beginning of “The Reckoning”.

3. Joan suggested that the person who submitted the documents with edits removing sexual abuse references did not mean to submit it, that they submitted it accidentally.

4. Suzanne did not turn in either document because she and John (she says “we”) were unable to find them.

5. Suzanne is not allowed to receive copies of these documents from Joan because Joan is working for ECC and they therefore “belong” to ECC.

6. Joan informed Suzanne that she is in possession of documents that would be evidence should Suzanne or the victims ever decide to sue ECC.



Have I missed any major points in Suzanne's updates? Just wanted to return this thread to the original topic.

[GodisFaithful]

ShamednoMore,

You posted a youtube video about 10 signs of a spiritually abusive system/church. Red Flags. It's on the John MacArthur thread.

I watched it yesterday and in this current thread about Suzanne's update, I see it happening before our eyes by some Mark Darling supporters.

Here's a list:

Leaders do not admit to failure but they freely point out the sins of others.

Leaders use traumatic things in people's past against them.

Followers fear to speak out and hold leaders accountable.

There is often a charismatic leader who falls into pride and arrogance. If this person leaves, what happens??

Leaders create a buffer for criticism. They have cronies who attack critics. The leader can do no wrong. Critics are enemies.

Leaders and their cronies try to silence ex-followers.


I suppose people in the system and even leaders are blind to what is wrong with this picture, but it is toxic to true spirituality. I look back at my GC days and feel that rather than drawing close to the Lord and desiring to please Him and learn more of Him and His will for my life, I was caught in a terrible system of thinking that I needed to please the pastors of my church and have their approval. It is so dangerous to put men on a pedistal, instead of all glory to God alone.

ANY pastor can fail/fall into sin. Temptation toward pride and lust are always lurking. No one, no pastor, is above temptation to sin.

If Mark Darling is innocent he should be able to, without any angst at all, wait out the process of letting the investigation show the truth. He has nothing to fear. Why does he need to have people out there biting people's heads off for believing a different narrative? What would be the point of making fun of people who believe the so-called liars? At first there was this idea of loving and praying for Suzanne. Where did that go?

(Linda, I'm on a different train of thought here, not wanting to detract from your write up of Suzanne's update.)

[DarthVader]

Getting back to the topic of this thread.

What was the update from Suzanne on May 26th?

1. She met with Joan Harris last week because:

-after the Fox 9 report, she felt she would be heard and not silenced

-she wanted to leave no room for the ECC BOT to say she was uncooperative


2. She reiterated what she had said before about attempts to silence her and John:


-being told by the ECC executive board that she couldn’t discuss sexual abuse with the therapist
-ECC telling the people at the leader’s meeting to not contact John or Suzanne

-ECC telling the people at the leader’s meeting to not discuss their departure with John or Suzanne’s siblings who attended ECC


3. She informed us of some key bits of information corroborating her story:


-Joan is in possession of the document Suzanne had to submit to the ECC executive board prior to her meeting with the therapist

-Joan confirmed that this document had the edits made by the ECC executive board

-Joan confirmed that the section having to do with sexual abuse was crossed off

-Joan is in possession of a printed e-mail chain in which ECC offered John and Suzanne 50K in exchange for not speaking disparagingly of Mark D or ECC

-The 50K offer was sent by ECC and not GCM

-The GCM attorney, Greg Guevara looked over this document

-Joan confirmed that the document was signed by Mark B.





Suzanne did a follow up clarifications post on May 27th in which she said:

1. The document Joan has is the document that Suzanne was required to submit to the ECC executive board prior to her meeting with the therapist.

2. This document is not the letter John wrote that Jeromy referenced at the beginning of “The Reckoning”.

3. Joan suggested that the person who submitted the documents with edits removing sexual abuse references did not mean to submit it, that they submitted it accidentally.

4. Suzanne did not turn in either document because she and John (she says “we”) were unable to find them.

5. Suzanne is not allowed to receive copies of these documents from Joan because Joan is working for ECC and they therefore “belong” to ECC.

6. Joan informed Suzanne that she is in possession of documents that would be evidence should Suzanne or the victims ever decide to sue ECC.



Have I missed any major points in Suzanne's updates? Just wanted to return this thread to the original topic.

I think this is comprehensive.  Along this line of thought, the more information that can be shared broadly prior to the BOT decision/ communication that occurs (possibly in the next 2 weeks if Joan truly delivers her report tomorrow) the better so that those of us still attend an ECC church have some lens to understand how much of the full story is being shared and how accurate the information is that is being shared with the church.  Having this information out there also raises the pressure on the BOT to release more vs. less.  It would be really powerful if the victims could, perhaps, work with the attorney Suzanne was using earlier on to create a "victims report".  There have been some shots taken at many victims' narratives - e.g., some MD supporters have said "Loey's allegation is a hug at karate class where there were many people present" there has been debate on how many victims have spoken with Joan (e.g., I saw a post that said Natalie was Victim A).

This is all about the victims so nothing should be shared they don't want shared - but to the degree they are willing to share it would be helpful to know how many victims actually spoke with Joan, any outlines of stories that have not yet been shared to refute the "it was just a hug narrative."  Knowledge is power and right now, as an ECC location member, we are relatively powerless (even to know who is on our BOT making these decisions, which is another topic).  Just my thoughts, and again no victim should be pressured to share anything she doesn't want to - at all.

[GodisFaithful]

I know Natalie and I know Victim A and they are not the same person. Note that on the Fox 9 report, Natalie did not tell a story anything like Victim A. Very different.

[DarthVader]

Thanks for clarifying. The "insider" ECC perspective on what Natalie shared on Fox9 boils down to "a walk or two in the woods as a more pleasant place for some light counseling than an office that was clearly misunderstood"..I have heard there is more to the story than that, but that is the "spin" and in the absence of other facts, it's hard to counter.  All that really (should) matter is what was shared with Joan, but I doubt we'll hear that.

[GodisFaithful]

Remember with Victim A, many hours late at night on the phone, alone on trips in the car and sitting in the car alone talking, going to restaurants alone, and more. Clearly over the line. Sexual talk, even into her marriage, and phone calls even into her marriage.

Natalie did not say how many walks in the woods.

That they are the same person must have been wishful thinking for a MD advocate. Hopefully it is not what Mark is saying, because it is not true. I don't think Victim A talked to Joan. Victim C did, I think. Victim A and her husband begged an EC pastor to do something about Mark's issues when they left. That was in her story.

[GodisFaithful]

And by the way, I did not see that any of the victims including Suzanne say that they hate Mark Darling. They all say he was inappropriate in a sexual way.

[DarthVader]

Remember with Victim A, many hours late at night on the phone, alone on trips in the car and sitting in the car alone talking, going to restaurants alone, and more. Clearly over the line. Sexual talk, even into her marriage, and phone calls even into her marriage.

Natalie did not say how many walks in the woods.

That they are the same person must have been wishful thinking for a MD advocate. Hopefully it is not what Mark is saying, because it is not true. I don't think Victim A talked to Joan. Victim C did, I think. Victim A and her husband begged an EC pastor to do something about Mark's issues when they left. That was in her story.

Prior to the Fox 9 interview airing, on May 2 (morning) Suzanne posted the following on FB "Three of the victims that I am aware of have spoken with Evergreen Church's attorney, Joan Harris".

I am assuming with both Suzanne and Loey speaking with Joan AFTER the Fox 9 interview that a total of five (5) women, in all, spoke to Joan Harris.  I was interpreting this as Suzanne, Loey, Natalie, Vic. A, Vic. C. but it sounds like you have a different understanding. It would be helpful, going into ECC's "town hall" or whatever they have to discuss the results/decision w/the church, to understand from Suzanne's perspective how many Victims did speak to Joan so we can ask intelligent questions, especially if they find there was no misconduct.