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.

[DarthVader]

That’s the way I read it as well. I can see there being many sources for the email chain, but one has to wonder who was Joan’s source for the letter Suzanne wrote that was marked up by the pastors was if it was not Suzanne. Also, if I the non-disparagement clause mentioned Mark specifically, I find that more compelling as corroboration for Suzanne’s story than the ECC story I’ve heard about this type of language being standard in severance agreements.

[steadfast]

That’s the way I read it as well. I can see there being many sources for the email chain, but one has to wonder who was Joan’s source for the letter Suzanne wrote that was marked up by the pastors was if it was not Suzanne. Also, if I the non-disparagement clause mentioned Mark specifically, I find that more compelling as corroboration for Suzanne’s story than the ECC story I’ve heard about this type of language being standard in severance agreements.

If they marked it up they probably made a copy of it before giving it back to her. It is plausible that there was another copy floating around.

[DarthVader]

It would speak well of the character of the person on ECC staff who turned it in to Joan if that is the case

[Linda]

Suzanne just added these clarifications:

Clarifications to my post yesterday (May 26, 2108).

Update/Clarifications:  Since posting yesterday, several people have asked if the letter Joan Harris, Evergreen Board of Trustees attorney, is in possession of is mine or John's.  I do not know if she has John's letter or not.  Joan has mine now and said that she thinks the person that gave her mine did not mean to, that it seemed accidental.  As well, this copy of my letter that has been turned in is one that in which the pastors 17ish years ago marked up to tell me what I could and could not say to pastor Mark Darling.  She said I remembered correctly that the pastors had crossed off the whole section under the heading of sexual abuse.

Some have also wondered if it was I who turned in that letter as well as the printed email that EC sent us, offering us 50K if we would not speak "ill" or "disparagingly" of EC or pastor Mark Darling, when we told them we were leaving.  I did not turn in either.  When this all began, we of course looked for both documents and did not have them.

Others have asked if I got a copy of them from Joan Harris.  A day or so after meeting with Joan, I called to ask her how I could get a copy.  She said because they were not turned in by me she could not give them to me as she was hired by the EC BOT and they would "belong" to them.  However, it was interesting to note that during our face-to-face meeting she said that if the other victims and I were to ever sue EC, she could not represent EC or us victims.  At that point she would be a witness that has evidence. 

I hope this helps to clear things up.

[devlin]

Suzanne just added these clarifications:

Clarifications to my post yesterday (May 26, 2108).

Update/Clarifications:  Since posting yesterday, several people have asked if the letter Joan Harris, Evergreen Board of Trustees attorney, is in possession of is mine or John's.  I do not know if she has John's letter or not.  Joan has mine now and said that she thinks the person that gave her mine did not mean to, that it seemed accidental.  As well, this copy of my letter that has been turned in is one that in which the pastors 17ish years ago marked up to tell me what I could and could not say to pastor Mark Darling.  She said I remembered correctly that the pastors had crossed off the whole section under the heading of sexual abuse.

Some have also wondered if it was I who turned in that letter as well as the printed email that EC sent us, offering us 50K if we would not speak "ill" or "disparagingly" of EC or pastor Mark Darling, when we told them we were leaving.  I did not turn in either.  When this all began, we of course looked for both documents and did not have them.

Others have asked if I got a copy of them from Joan Harris.  A day or so after meeting with Joan, I called to ask her how I could get a copy.  She said because they were not turned in by me she could not give them to me as she was hired by the EC BOT and they would "belong" to them.  However, it was interesting to note that during our face-to-face meeting she said that if the other victims and I were to ever sue EC, she could not represent EC or us victims.  At that point she would be a witness that has evidence.  

I hope this helps to clear things up.

well, this is even more confusing. approx 4-5 people would have access to copies of these alleged documents. mark b, mark d, brent, john & suzanne. we can effectively rule out mark d and the evergreen pastors (who were the ones to mark up the letter), as well as suzanne now apparently. we can also effectively rule out john right? he wouldn’t secretly give those documents without telling suzanne. so a mysterious third party has intervened in the waning days of the investigation to produce documents that suzanne wrote or received but no longer has copies of. that appears to be the only option we are left with if i'm reading all this correctly.

[Linda]

well, this is even more confusing. approx 4-5 people would have access to copies of these alleged documents. mark b, mark d, brent, john & suzanne. we can effectively rule out mark d and the evergreen pastors (who were the ones to mark up the letter), as well as suzanne now apparently. we can also effectively rule out john right? he wouldn’t secretly give those documents without telling suzanne. so a mysterious third party has intervened in the waning days of the investigation to produce documents that suzanne wrote or received but no longer has copies of. that appears to be the only option we are left with if i'm reading all this correctly.

Doesn't sound like a mysterious 3rd party has intervened, according to Suzanne statement where she mentions that Joan thinks the person who turned in that particular document didn't mean to. Perhaps it was in a stack of other documents and someone turned it in accidentally. Who knows?

But, if the document exists and Joan does have a copy, let's choose to believe that the ECC pastor (?) who had access to it meant to turn it in because he is an honest person and cares about the truth. I would hate to think that ECC pastors would withhold documents that corroborated Suzanne's story of abuse and a cover-up.

Since posting yesterday, several people have asked if the letter Joan Harris, Evergreen Board of Trustees attorney, is in possession of is mine or John's.  I do not know if she has John's letter or not.  Joan has mine now and said that she thinks the person that gave her mine did not mean to, that it seemed accidental.  As well, this copy of my letter that has been turned in is one that in which the pastors 17ish years ago marked up to tell me what I could and could not say to pastor Mark Darling.  She said I remembered correctly that the pastors had crossed off the whole section under the heading of sexual abuse.

As Suzanne mentioned, she and John could not find the documents in question, so if Joan has them they would have had to be turned in by an ECC insider (most likely pastor?). This is a good thing and shows honesty on the part of whoever turned them in.

Also, as I understand it, there would be nothing prohibiting the people who provided the documents to Joan from giving copies to Suzanne. Just a thought if the people who turned them in are reading this.

[devlin]

that explanation only creates a bigger quandary - one has to assume that the most damning pieces of evidence, evidence that could ruin mark and evergreen as a church, evidence that evergreen clearly stated did not exist, were accidentally handed in my mark b or brent? i think that's been my issue with all of this from the get go. nothing ever makes any sense...

[AgathaL'Orange]

Which would be amazing and would show some character and integrity!  Maybe those pastors really do practice what they preach and feel bad about what happened.  Maybe they want to fix it!  

That could go a long way in healing things.

Hiding things—-  true or not,  often backfires.  Maybe people see this?


I agree this seems so promising.  To turn over a damning piece of evidence would show a level of integrity often unheard of today.  So I’m encouraged.  

[Linda]

Exactly, Agatha.

that explanation only creates a bigger quandary - one has to assume that the most damning pieces of evidence, evidence that could ruin mark and evergreen as a church, evidence that evergreen clearly stated did not exist, were accidentally handed in my mark b or brent? i think that's been my issue with all of this from the get go. nothing ever makes any sense...

When things don’t make sense, one explanation is that there are missing pieces. If the documentation Suzanne could not find was turned in by an ECC pastor or insider with access to the documents, it does create a huge dilemma for ECC. Joan obviously knows how these documents came into her possession and I’m sure will inform the BOT of how and when she got them.

Are you saying if Brent or Mark had documentation that would vindicate Suzanne and the other victims alleging abuse, but “damn” Mark and ECC, they should withhold that information from Joan? That they would have been careful to not “accidentally” turn them in? Hopefully that’s not what you meant.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Suzanne went public with her story saying there were at least 2 written documents that backed up her claims.  However, she could not locate those documents and did not claim she had them, only that they existed at one point.  I'm not sure if you're insinuating that the documents Joan has are not authentic, but if Suzanne were to fabricate them, it would have been more convincing for her to have done so from the very beginning.  If someone else tried to fabricate a statement from Suzanne, given the very personal nature of the statement that she is claiming, a forgery would seem difficult.  An e-mail chain regarding an NDA is much harder to fabricate.

When you say that nothing ever makes sense, I'm not sure what you are referring to?

that explanation only creates a bigger quandary - one has to assume that the most damning pieces of evidence, evidence that could ruin mark and evergreen as a church, evidence that evergreen clearly stated did not exist, were accidentally handed in my mark b or brent? i think that's been my issue with all of this from the get go. nothing ever makes any sense...

[DarthVader]

It may truly be God at work -having the 2 most impactful documents not be able to be located by Suzanne but then turn up from another source, where you would least expect does seem like His way.  Having them come from an ECC source would, if true, increase the documents' credibility immensely (very low possibility of a fake/forgery). It would be a nice bright spot in an otherwise dark chapter of ECC history if it turns out an insider handed these things in knowing full well these documents tell a story we all wish did not happen- if that is the case I hope we find out who turned them in (if deliberate) so we can thank them.

Her FB post also seems to settle the question that the "Civil Suit" thread posed around attorney/client privilege.  If what Suzanne said Joan told her about being a witness is true, it seems like Joan also does also not believe she has attorney client privilege.  Although I'm not sure I see how any other victim besides Suzanne could successfully sue - I would think they would all have statute of limitations issues except for Suzanne who was potentially defamed by ECC in the Feb 2018 twitter post, but again, I haven't been to law school..

[steadfast]

that explanation only creates a bigger quandary - one has to assume that the most damning pieces of evidence, evidence that could ruin mark and evergreen as a church, evidence that evergreen clearly stated did not exist, were accidentally handed in my mark b or brent? i think that's been my issue with all of this from the get go. nothing ever makes any sense...

I hope the truth comes out.

If Mark Darling is innocent, I hope that his name will be cleared and cleared swiftly.

If Mark Darling is guilty, even if the worst allegations are shownn to be true, it does not need to lead to the ruin of anyone or anything. I would hope that he would follow the steps of King David, whose brokenness and contrition in the wake his horrific sin led to a more fruitful ministry. I would hope that David’s prayer of confession in Psalm 51 would be the cry of Mark’s heart, and that he would remember verse 17, “a broken and contrite heart I will not despise.”.

If there are other leaders/pastors who are guilty here, I would hope the same for them.

I hope Mark Darling knows he is loved by our Almighty, merciful God. “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; His mercies never come to an end. They are new every morning; great is Thy faithfulness.” Lamentations 3:22-23.

[DarthVader]

that explanation only creates a bigger quandary - one has to assume that the most damning pieces of evidence, evidence that could ruin mark and evergreen as a church, evidence that evergreen clearly stated did not exist, were accidentally handed in my mark b or brent? i think that's been my issue with all of this from the get go. nothing ever makes any sense...

I hope the truth comes out.

If Mark Darling is innocent, I hope that his name will be cleared and cleared swiftly.

If Mark Darling is guilty, even if the worst allegations are shownn to be true, it does not need to lead to the ruin of anyone or anything. I would hope that he would follow the steps of King David, whose brokenness and contrition in the wake his horrific sin led to a more fruitful ministry. I would hope that David’s prayer of confession in Psalm 51 would be the cry of Mark’s heart, and that he would remember verse 17, “a broken and contrite heart I will not despise.”.

If there are other leaders/pastors who are guilty here, I would hope the same for them.

I hope Mark Darling knows he is loved by our Almighty, merciful God. “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; His mercies never come to an end. They are new every morning; great is Thy faithfulness.” Lamentations 3:22-23.

amen

[Barb]

that explanation only creates a bigger quandary - one has to assume that the most damning pieces of evidence, evidence that could ruin mark and evergreen as a church, evidence that evergreen clearly stated did not exist, were accidentally handed in my mark b or brent? i think that's been my issue with all of this from the get go. nothing ever makes any sense...

I hope the truth comes out.

If Mark Darling is innocent, I hope that his name will be cleared and cleared swiftly.

If Mark Darling is guilty, even if the worst allegations are shownn to be true, it does not need to lead to the ruin of anyone or anything. I would hope that he would follow the steps of King David, whose brokenness and contrition in the wake his horrific sin led to a more fruitful ministry. I would hope that David’s prayer of confession in Psalm 51 would be the cry of Mark’s heart, and that he would remember verse 17, “a broken and contrite heart I will not despise.”.

If there are other leaders/pastors who are guilty here, I would hope the same for them.

I hope Mark Darling knows he is loved by our Almighty, merciful God. “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; His mercies never come to an end. They are new every morning; great is Thy faithfulness.” Lamentations 3:22-23.

Yes!! Amen!!

[Heidi]

that explanation only creates a bigger quandary - one has to assume that the most damning pieces of evidence, evidence that could ruin mark and evergreen as a church, evidence that evergreen clearly stated did not exist, were accidentally handed in my mark b or brent? i think that's been my issue with all of this from the get go. nothing ever makes any sense...

I hope the truth comes out.

If Mark Darling is innocent, I hope that his name will be cleared and cleared swiftly.

If Mark Darling is guilty, even if the worst allegations are shownn to be true, it does not need to lead to the ruin of anyone or anything. I would hope that he would follow the steps of King David, whose brokenness and contrition in the wake his horrific sin led to a more fruitful ministry. I would hope that David’s prayer of confession in Psalm 51 would be the cry of Mark’s heart, and that he would remember verse 17, “a broken and contrite heart I will not despise.”.

If there are other leaders/pastors who are guilty here, I would hope the same for them.

I hope Mark Darling knows he is loved by our Almighty, merciful God. “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; His mercies never come to an end. They are new every morning; great is Thy faithfulness.” Lamentations 3:22-23.

Amen and Amen- This can still be Evergreen's finest hour.  True humility and true repentance is the broken and contrite heart God wants from all. 

[devlin]

boy o boy, clarity on the internet is harder than i thought. the reason i assumed suzanne had given joan the documents was not the presence of the words ‘i gave them to her’ but the distinct absence of exclamation points. one would think that heading into that interview to find out that the most important evidence, the evidence that would put mark and evergreen away for good, had landed mysteriously into joan’s possession would have been the cause for a massive celebration. but her post was delivered so clinically i was left to assume it was business as usual - suzanne found the documents and presented them to joan. i was pleased to see some clarification from suzanne (who I noticed logged in last night and this morning). it appears my questions (and those of digital lynch mob perhaps) were enough to warrant some clarity. so i suppose it’s time to acknowledge the 2 very separate trains of thought in this great debate. those in suzanne’s corner believe in decades of coverup by evergreen and the posts on her facebook are simply clarifications to further the truth. those in marks corner believe suzanne is lying and the posts on her facebook (such as the one this morning) indicate her getting caught in another lie and attempting to redirect the narrative accordingly. such is the power and terror of words on computers.

one thing is quite clear - barring the internet disappearing, mark darlings formerly polished name will never be fully cleared, even if suzanne fully recants her story - he has lost it forever. i’m realizing i now live in an age where the idea of a righteous man no longer exists. good men were hard enough to find, but whether real or implied, they are all gone now. mark you’ll never read this, but for what it’s worth, you were the last of your kind. as for me, I woke up this year to a world I no longer want to be a part of

…and for clarity, no, i’m not suicidal

[Badger]

mark darlings formerly polished name will never be fully cleared, even if suzanne fully recants her story - he has lost it forever

If the allegations are true, mark's name should never be fully cleared.  I don't care to draw similarities to King David in situations like this, but I will say David's "polished" name was never fully cleared and he still lived with many consequences of his sin.

[devlin]

mark darlings formerly polished name will never be fully cleared, even if suzanne fully recants her story - he has lost it forever

If the allegations are true, mark's name should never be fully cleared.  I don't care to draw similarities to King David in situations like this, but I will say David's "polished" name was never fully cleared and he still lived with many consequences of his sin.

perhaps i don't understand the rules of the forum, but does the obvious need to be explicitly stated in every post? i'm not sure i can live up to that

[OneOfMany]

that explanation only creates a bigger quandary - one has to assume that the most damning pieces of evidence, evidence that could ruin mark and evergreen as a church, evidence that evergreen clearly stated did not exist, were accidentally handed in my mark b or brent? i think that's been my issue with all of this from the get go. nothing ever makes any sense...

I hope the truth comes out.

If Mark Darling is innocent, I hope that his name will be cleared and cleared swiftly.

If Mark Darling is guilty, even if the worst allegations are shownn to be true, it does not need to lead to the ruin of anyone or anything. I would hope that he would follow the steps of King David, whose brokenness and contrition in the wake his horrific sin led to a more fruitful ministry. I would hope that David’s prayer of confession in Psalm 51 would be the cry of Mark’s heart, and that he would remember verse 17, “a broken and contrite heart I will not despise.”.

If there are other leaders/pastors who are guilty here, I would hope the same for them.

I hope Mark Darling knows he is loved by our Almighty, merciful God. “The steadfast love of the Lord never ceases; His mercies never come to an end. They are new every morning; great is Thy faithfulness.” Lamentations 3:22-23.

Seriously? Decades of abuse using scripture to convince people that all is as it should be. Decades of cover up by those who know that abuse is taking place. Decades of not being willing to acknowledge scriptural heresy but asking those who who bring up concerns to leave. Decades of this....decades. And an apology or repentance should be sufficient? Are you kidding me? Lets not forget that GCM heresy includes such statements that all is forgiven before you sin and repentance is not therefore needed. People who teach that kind of heresy do not repent. Brent Knox, Mark Darling and Mark Bowen are unfit to be in a position of authority because they lack healthy boundaries and have a pattern of covering up sin that goes back decades!!!!!!!!! This entire "church" operates this way. The system is so sick how can it possibly become a healthy one?? Disband and let people go find a healthy community if they so choose. I do not see any possibility to "save" Evergreen because if you remade Evergreen into a healthy system it simply would not be anything like what it is now.

[Linda]

boy o boy, clarity on the internet is harder than i thought. the reason i assumed suzanne had given joan the documents was not the presence of the words ‘i gave them to her’ but the distinct absence of exclamation points. one would think that heading into that interview to find out that the most important evidence, the evidence that would put mark and evergreen away for good, had landed mysteriously into joan’s possession would have been the cause for a massive celebration. but her post was delivered so clinically i was left to assume it was business as usual - suzanne found the documents and presented them to joan. i was pleased to see some clarification from suzanne (who I noticed logged in last night and this morning). it appears my questions (and those of digital lynch mob perhaps) were enough to warrant some clarity. so i suppose it’s time to acknowledge the 2 very separate trains of thought in this great debate. those in suzanne’s corner believe in decades of coverup by evergreen and the posts on her facebook are simply clarifications to further the truth. those in marks corner believe suzanne is lying and the posts on her facebook (such as the one this morning) indicate her getting caught in another lie and attempting to redirect the narrative accordingly. such is the power and terror of words on computers.

one thing is quite clear - barring the internet disappearing, mark darlings formerly polished name will never be fully cleared, even if suzanne fully recants her story - he has lost it forever. i’m realizing i now live in an age where the idea of a righteous man no longer exists. good men were hard enough to find, but whether real or implied, they are all gone now. mark you’ll never read this, but for what it’s worth, you were the last of your kind. as for me, I woke up this year to a world I no longer want to be a part of

…and for clarity, no, i’m not suicidal

You, the person who uses no capitalization, are drawing conclusions based on punctuation?

What do you mean by "business as usual"?

If you could for a moment put yourself in the place of someone who was truly a victim who was not being believed, you might understand that there is a heaviness that goes with this. I would imagine there is not much joy in finding documentation. Relief, yes, but no celebrating. This is a serious and sobering situation and it is not over.

I'm glad you finally acknowledged that those of you "in Mark's corner", or should I say "in marks corner" believe Suzanne is lying. I had never heard anyone say that so directly, so I appreciate your honesty.

Just curious. If the allegations of abuse and cover up are shown to be true (via testimony and/or documentation) will you still say Mark's name will have been tarnished by his own doing?

Follow up question, if the allegations are shown to be true, how will you feel about calling a victim a liar on the Internet?