What the BOT Report Said (and What it Didn't Say)

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.

[Linda]

One of the things that struck me about the BOT report was the language of it. Words matter. The wording of the report was interesting. Since the full report will not be made available, all anyone knows is what the BOT tells us and what the victims tell us. The question regarding the investigation is: What did the BOT say?

First Topic

"1) regarding the allegation of physical sexual abuse made by Suzanne van Dyck against Mark Darling"

What follows is an analysis of the allegation of physical sexual abuse of SVD by MD.

Summary of the BOT conclusion on the charge of physical sexual abuse:

-Her individual allegation could not be substantiated

-Some pastors knew of alleged "emotional sexual abuse" prior to SVD's Tweet

-The BOT was not aware of the accusation of physical sexual abuse prior to January 24, 2018.

Here is the exact wording of the report.

"From the investigator’s report: “Based on the interviews conducted during this investigation, Suzanne van Dyck’s individual allegations of sexual abuse, by definition, could not be substantiated.”

While the investigation revealed that some pastors of Evergreen Church had seen the phrase “emotional sexual abuse” prior to Suzanne van Dyck’s post on an online forum on January 24, 2018, the EC BOT first learned of Suzanne van Dyck’s specific allegation of physical sexual abuse by Mark Darling from a post she made on an online forum on January 24, 2018.

The investigation determined that no one at Evergreen Church knew about this specific allegation prior to January 24, 2018."

My questions and thoughts.

From the wording, "regarding the allegation of physical sexual abuse made by SVD" and "SVDs individual allegations" I conclude that they are only reporting on physical sexual abuse alleged by SVD.

In addition, the conclusion is that the allegations were "unsubstantiated" (i.e. couldn't be proven). What stands out to me is that they did not say the allegations were false, they just said they couldn't be proven one way or another.

Another point, in the statement they went out of their way to emphasize they were commenting on the allegations of physical sexual abuse of SVD. They made no comment regarding any other women's accusations of physical sexual abuse. This, of course, could be because there were no other women who claimed physical sexual abuse, but it could also be that there were other women, but the board chose only to address Suzanne's charge. We will never know because the report was not made available.

What I hear in this statement is this:

We can't determine whether or not the charges of physical sexual abuse by MD against SVD happened. There is no evidence either way. What we do know is that prior to SVD's Tweet, some (doesn't say which ones, but obviously the BOT knows the names) pastors were aware of charges of "emotional sexual abuse". The BOT was not aware of any of the allegations until January 2018.

What I do not hear in this statement is:

Abuse did not happen and SVD was lying when she claimed abuse.

[EscapeFromSummitview]

I thought the physical abuse allegations were limited to stuff like giving a hug while having an erection, but the BoT report was not release so I'm not sure what was alleged.

This was posted yesterday on SVD's facebook:

I would not have thought his behavior possible if he hadn't also physically assaulted me and made sexually charged comments to me (both in very public places) I also reported this to the church board, and chose to believe that they would deal with this.

Loey Nordsletten-Soderstrom, I am aware that no one knows exactly what happened between you and MD except for you two and God. What I can tell you is that when this issue was discussed at that time - there was a conclusion that was communicated to me by the point person from Evergreen that you were talking to. From what I now know that conclusion was very different from what was said to you by that same person. I am truly sorry for that.

[Linda]

I thought the physical abuse allegations were limited to stuff like giving a hug while having an erection, but the BoT report was not release so I'm not sure what was alleged.

This was posted yesterday on SVD's facebook:

I would not have thought his behavior possible if he hadn't also physically assaulted me and made sexually charged comments to me (both in very public places) I also reported this to the church board, and chose to believe that they would deal with this.

Loey Nordsletten-Soderstrom, I am aware that no one knows exactly what happened between you and MD except for you two and God. What I can tell you is that when this issue was discussed at that time - there was a conclusion that was communicated to me by the point person from Evergreen that you were talking to. From what I now know that conclusion was very different from what was said to you by that same person. I am truly sorry for that.

Exactly. We don't know what the BOT was told. We only know what the BOT said in their report.

I saw Loey's posts about MD "physically assaulting" her (and John's comment which indicated there were two narratives happening–one for pastors one for victims) and a few days prior to that in a comment she had used the phrase "inappropriate words and physical contact", but since the board didn't mention who they spoke with or what they were told, I didn’t include that in my analysis.

But this does bring up a thought I was trying to convey. IF, other women spoke with Joan and alleged physical abuse, the report, as far as I can tell did not indicate so. Of course this could be because no other women made charges of physical sexual abuse. It could also be they did and Joan did not mention it in her report to the BOT. It could be because the BOT knew of the charges, took them into consideration, but chose not to mention them and only address the charge SVD made in her original Tweet. We will never know unless the BOT tells us. Or, if the women who spoke with Joan make public the content of what they told her.

All we know from the report is some pastors knew about allegations of "emotional sexual abuse" prior to Suzanne's Tweet and there was no evidence to prove or disprove her claim.

[EscapeFromSummitview]

Maybe they were unable to prove or disprove any of the allegations of physical contact, so the BoT decided to not mention them and instead only refer to Suzanne's allegations in the report because Suzanne had already gone public and they had already publicly responded.

[GodisFaithful]

It does seem like the BoT was attempting to underhandedly discredit Suzanne, in my opinion, because they specifically said that the allegation of her being sexually abused was "unsubstantiated" and they also said that the accusation of hush money being offered to the van Dykes was not true because it was actually a severance agreement that was offered.

Well, lets just look at the severance agreement for a minute. Can anyone see that Suzanne would look at it as hush money, since the severance agreement had a clause that stated that she could not speak disparagingly about Evergreen? There had been a commitment to her that Mark Darling would step down from pastoring and get counseling. But he did not follow through, and the other pastors did not make him follow through and they now admit that. And the pastors knew that Suzanne and John were not at all happy about that and came home from Berlin and left the church over it. So even if it was a severance agreement it would have silenced Suzanne after all that she had gone through in trying to bring Mark Darling's inappropriate behavior to light and have it adequately dealt with. So to Suzanne it certainly was seen as hush money even if in a lawyerly way it wasn't. And  I think that Evergreen should have humbly acknowledged that they can see that Suzanne would take it that way.

The BoT used the word "individual" very craftily, so that it did not involve an accusation of any other woman, Linda, as you say. They knew that Loey was willing to talk publicly so they were being very careful. And now we know that Loey says that Mark Darling physically assaulted her.

It seems like the BoT tried to point out where there were technicalities of "fault" with Suzanne, instead of dealing with the hurt and damage to her life and speaking to that. Why can't they be humble about this? It seems like the BoT is trying to hide as much as they can, but in rescinding Mark's ordination, it is loud and clear that there were serious problems in Mark Darling's conduct as a pastor.

[looking4answers]

I thought the physical abuse allegations were limited to stuff like giving a hug while having an erection, but the BoT report was not release so I'm not sure what was alleged.

This was posted yesterday on SVD's facebook:

I would not have thought his behavior possible if he hadn't also physically assaulted me and made sexually charged comments to me (both in very public places) I also reported this to the church board, and chose to believe that they would deal with this.

Loey Nordsletten-Soderstrom, I am aware that no one knows exactly what happened between you and MD except for you two and God. What I can tell you is that when this issue was discussed at that time - there was a conclusion that was communicated to me by the point person from Evergreen that you were talking to. From what I now know that conclusion was very different from what was said to you by that same person. I am truly sorry for that.

I am confused by Loey's statement overall, but I also question her using the term "physical assaulted me"  in "very public places".   How is one physically assaulted in a very public place with no one noticing? Of course I am referencing a few definitions of assault..."placing another person in fear of imminent bodily harm, and/or causing bodily harm".  Assault is also when one be one person or a group causes physical harm to another.   I think it would be helpful to not hear over-emotionalized wording in regards to what someone did or did not do to them.  It makes is quite challenging to find credibility in the statements. 

I also have questions regarding some issues and I am looking for answers to clarify somethings.  Maybe some have thoughts on these questions.  1.  I remember in the initial fox 9 new report that SVD stated that "he asked what sexual positions this guy liked..."  That statement has perplexed me for some time.  Was SVD dating John during this time, or was she dating someone that MD was encouraging sexual relations with, or was it regarding a person she used to sleep with and is no longer?   

2.  I am perplexed that some things have been completely glossed over regarding some items in the board summary.  First being that SVD said that a letter draft from 2001 had all sorts of things crossed out in red (and that Joan told her that this was accurate or something to that effect).  The board summary said they have the original draft of the letter and the revised copy as evidence, where only one item was crossed off and re-written.  And the BOT has found that the hush money offered to the Van Dycks was a standard severance package, this was proven with evidence and substantiated.  I question why these items are not lining up with SVD statements over the months.  There are more questions, but these are my thoughts for now. 

[Linda]

My intent for this topic was to discuss the BOT report. What it said and what it did not say. I have a few posts along those lines of thinking. It would be nice to not go off topic. Thanks.

[looking4answers]

My intent for this topic was to discuss the BOT report. What it said and what it did not say. I have a few posts along those lines of thinking. It would be nice to not go off topic. Thanks.

I did not mean to go off topic.  The end of my post is discussing the bot report.

 So where could I post my questions or thoughts about the other things I brought up?  Loey was quoted on this topic. So I figured it was an appropriate place to bring up my concern regarding what she said. Since another poster brought this information forth. 
Now looking for answers and confused. 

[Differentstrokes]

You are always welcome to start a new thread:)

[GodisFaithful]

Looking 4 Answers:

A pastor should not be alone with a woman asking those kinds of questions, as Mark Darling did with Suzanne. Totally inappropriate. None of his business what the details of Suzanne's sex life was and none of our business either. The point is, he was asking her inappropriate questions and he was alone with her at the time. Creepy.

And men have been known to, in sneaky weird ways, sexually physically assault a woman without anyone but that woman noticing. If Loey says it happened I believe her.

The problems with Mark Darling were serious enough to rescind his ordination. The BoT should have been more forthcoming about the investigation so that there is not so much confusion about their discipline of Mark Darling.

Interesting that the board of Willow Creek is now saying that they wish they would have believed the women's accounts from the get go and not allowed Bill Hybel's account that the women were lying to stand out there so long without being challenged. That was in the Christian Post recently.

[Gracetoyou]

Looking4answers, your OWN church (BOT picked by the pastors themselves because memebrs have no say really at the Rock) is who took away Marks ordination (pastor title), found enough evidence from the investigation your own church started, and Mark decided to leave you and the church because his pride got in the way of the BOT decision to allow him to work towards a redemption type process due to his OWN sin. Why not talk to the BOT who you know inside your own church and ask them yourself as to why they concluded the way they did.

[PietWowo]

Looking4answers, your OWN church (BOT picked by the pastors themselves because memebrs have no say really at the Rock) is who took away Marks ordination (pastor title), found enough evidence from the investigation your own church started, and Mark decided to leave you and the church because his pride got in the way of the BOT decision to allow him to work towards a redemption type process due to his OWN sin. Why not talk to the BOT who you know inside your own church and ask them yourself as to why they concluded the way they did.

How do you know that Mark's pride got in the way?

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Having followed this story and read all of Suzanne's comments, and those of other victims where I had access to them, the "physical" sexual abuse wasn't even necessarily what the victims focused on the most.  It was part of the package of misuse of power, clergy misconduct, spiritual, emotional, and sexual abuse.  It was just one more way in which Mark Darling crossed a sexual boundary (the specific examples I read were of long hugs while pressing an erection in to the women and not letting go, putting a hand on the woman's thigh).  It seems like the "safest" thing for ECC to focus on since those actions aren't as serious-sounding as rape (and can be and have been written off as "misunderstandings"--just a hug), was the only criminal charge of the types of abuse (from my understanding), and is the charge that would be a deal breaker for most.  So, whew, much easier for them that the charge weren't substantiated WHEN IT CAME TO ONE INDIVIDUAL.

They really downplayed the sickness of a young woman seeking pastoral care/counseling from a trusted leader and instead having creepy things done to her in the name of "love." 

I am not speaking for any of the victims, but at the age of 19 and having been raised in a marginally Christian home, I accepted different definitions of words when it came to church because I assumed these people were more mature than me, knew more than me, and gosh, they acted like they really cared about me.  So, even if something in my gut said "this is off," I would have overridden that by explaining to my instincts that this is how serious Christians act.  And to manipulate and take advantage of that because of having the title of pastor is just so egregious. 

The BOT, in my opinion, failed to adequately address the spiritual/emotional/non-physical sexual abuse, which the report did seem to substantiate (is that the interpretation others have?).  It was not simply "inappropriate."  Mark Darling's actions were predatory.   

One of the things that struck me about the BOT report was the language of it. Words matter. The wording of the report was interesting. Since the full report will not be made available, all anyone knows is what the BOT tells us and what the victims tell us. The question regarding the investigation is: What did the BOT say?

First Topic

"1) regarding the allegation of physical sexual abuse made by Suzanne van Dyck against Mark Darling"

What follows is an analysis of the allegation of physical sexual abuse of SVD by MD.

Summary of the BOT conclusion on the charge of physical sexual abuse:

-Her individual allegation could not be substantiated

-Some pastors knew of alleged "emotional sexual abuse" prior to SVD's Tweet

-The BOT was not aware of the accusation of physical sexual abuse prior to January 24, 2018.

Here is the exact wording of the report.

"From the investigator’s report: “Based on the interviews conducted during this investigation, Suzanne van Dyck’s individual allegations of sexual abuse, by definition, could not be substantiated.”

While the investigation revealed that some pastors of Evergreen Church had seen the phrase “emotional sexual abuse” prior to Suzanne van Dyck’s post on an online forum on January 24, 2018, the EC BOT first learned of Suzanne van Dyck’s specific allegation of physical sexual abuse by Mark Darling from a post she made on an online forum on January 24, 2018.

The investigation determined that no one at Evergreen Church knew about this specific allegation prior to January 24, 2018."

My questions and thoughts.

From the wording, "regarding the allegation of physical sexual abuse made by SVD" and "SVDs individual allegations" I conclude that they are only reporting on physical sexual abuse alleged by SVD.

In addition, the conclusion is that the allegations were "unsubstantiated" (i.e. couldn't be proven). What stands out to me is that they did not say the allegations were false, they just said they couldn't be proven one way or another.

Another point, in the statement they went out of their way to emphasize they were commenting on the allegations of physical sexual abuse of SVD. They made no comment regarding any other women's accusations of physical sexual abuse. This, of course, could be because there were no other women who claimed physical sexual abuse, but it could also be that there were other women, but the board chose only to address Suzanne's charge. We will never know because the report was not made available.

What I hear in this statement is this:

We can't determine whether or not the charges of physical sexual abuse by MD against SVD happened. There is no evidence either way. What we do know is that prior to SVD's Tweet, some (doesn't say which ones, but obviously the BOT knows the names) pastors were aware of charges of "emotional sexual abuse". The BOT was not aware of any of the allegations until January 2018.

What I do not hear in this statement is:

Abuse did not happen and SVD was lying when she claimed abuse.

[Linda]

I'm working through an analysis of the BOT report as I have time. Here is my second installment (the first is quoted below).

Second Topic

"2) regarding allegations to the effect that Evergreen Church was made aware of allegations of sexual abuse (not physical) and failed to take appropriate action"

Summary of the BOT conclusion regarding the allegation of ECC knowing about charges of sexual abuse (not physical) and failing to take action

-In 2001, SVD provided Mark Bowen, Brent Knox, Doug Patterson, and JVD with a letter addressing concerns about MD

-This letter included the phrase "emotional sexual abuse"

-There was a second draft of the letter that changed the phrase "emotional sexual abuse" to "inappropriate sexual boundaries"

-In 2001, Mark Bowen was aware of AT LEAST two other women who had similar concerns about MD's conduct as a pastor (inappropriate conversations of a sexual nature was mentioned)

-Other than MB, in 2001, no one else on the BOT knew about these charges

-ECC failed to take appropriate action in response to the misconduct allegations

-In 2001, Mark Bowen, Brent Knox, Doug Patterson, and John van Dyck knew of SVD's concerns and over several months made an effort to address the concerns

-ECC elders failed to follow through and implement the appropriate corrective action

-ECC has no policies in place to address these these concerns

My Questions and Thoughts

Apparently there are two boards. There is the Trustee board referred to here as the BOT (appointed by the pastors, not elected by the congregation) and there is some type of elder board made up of a handful of elders. I think some have called this the "executive board". Is this board written down anywhere or is it just common knowledge?

According to the report, except for the pastor heading it, the BOT was unaware of these charges. This is interesting because according to the report, the BOT "has final authority over financial and legal oversight, including employment decisions and policy matters." One big question here is why was the board that handles personnel issues not informed of the allegations of inappropriate conduct by an employee.

We learned that in 2001 Mark Bowen, Brent Knox, and Doug Patterson (and of course JVD) knew about the allegations of "emotional sexual abuse" in a letter and there was a second draft of that letter that changed the phrase "emotional sexual abuse" to "inappropriate sexual boundaries". Now this is interesting because that corroborates what Suzanne has said. She mentions having to deliver a written statement to some of the elders and that the parts where she mentioned MD as an abuser were crossed off. It would appear as if she wrote a second draft and changed the word "abuse" to "boundaries".

We learned that there was a plan of correction that was agreed upon and that the ECC elders involved did not follow through. This corroborates what Suzanne has said: "August of 2003: after learning from Mark Bowen (ECC pastor) that Mark D. did not follow through on my therapist's therapeutic recommendation (see earlier post about Mark Bowen agreeing that Mark D. should and would do both recommendations),  we decided to leave GCM, Rock Berlin and Evergreen."

We learn that in 2001 Mark Bowen was aware of AT LEAST two other women with similar allegations. The phrase "at least" strikes me as odd. It implies that there are more. I take it to suggest that there are more, but there were two that were verified at this time.

What I hear in the BOT statement regarding the second topic is:

In 2001, some elders at ECC (the head honcho elders?) became aware of the fact that MD committed some type of behavior involving "inappropriate sexual boundaries" that required corrective action. Brent Knox, Mark Bowen, and Doug Patterson failed to implement the agreed upon corrective action. In addition, in 2001, MB knew of at least 2 other women with similar concerns. MB was the only member of the BOT who knew of the allegations in 2001.

What I Don't Hear In this Statement:

I don't hear: "After a through review of all facts, the mediator was completely satisfied by the transparency and integrity of the Darlings and Evergreen Church's response. No further action steps were recommended by the mediator, nor required by the van Dycks."

One of the things that struck me about the BOT report was the language of it. Words matter. The wording of the report was interesting. Since the full report will not be made available, all anyone knows is what the BOT tells us and what the victims tell us. The question regarding the investigation is: What did the BOT say?

First Topic

"1) regarding the allegation of physical sexual abuse made by Suzanne van Dyck against Mark Darling"

What follows is an analysis of the allegation of physical sexual abuse of SVD by MD.

Summary of the BOT conclusion on the charge of physical sexual abuse:

-Her individual allegation could not be substantiated

-Some pastors knew of alleged "emotional sexual abuse" prior to SVD's Tweet

-The BOT was not aware of the accusation of physical sexual abuse prior to January 24, 2018.

Here is the exact wording of the report.

"From the investigator’s report: “Based on the interviews conducted during this investigation, Suzanne van Dyck’s individual allegations of sexual abuse, by definition, could not be substantiated.”

While the investigation revealed that some pastors of Evergreen Church had seen the phrase “emotional sexual abuse” prior to Suzanne van Dyck’s post on an online forum on January 24, 2018, the EC BOT first learned of Suzanne van Dyck’s specific allegation of physical sexual abuse by Mark Darling from a post she made on an online forum on January 24, 2018.

The investigation determined that no one at Evergreen Church knew about this specific allegation prior to January 24, 2018."

My questions and thoughts.

From the wording, "regarding the allegation of physical sexual abuse made by SVD" and "SVDs individual allegations" I conclude that they are only reporting on physical sexual abuse alleged by SVD.

In addition, the conclusion is that the allegations were "unsubstantiated" (i.e. couldn't be proven). What stands out to me is that they did not say the allegations were false, they just said they couldn't be proven one way or another.

Another point, in the statement they went out of their way to emphasize they were commenting on the allegations of physical sexual abuse of SVD. They made no comment regarding any other women's accusations of physical sexual abuse. This, of course, could be because there were no other women who claimed physical sexual abuse, but it could also be that there were other women, but the board chose only to address Suzanne's charge. We will never know because the report was not made available.

What I hear in this statement is this:

We can't determine whether or not the charges of physical sexual abuse by MD against SVD happened. There is no evidence either way. What we do know is that prior to SVD's Tweet, some (doesn't say which ones, but obviously the BOT knows the names) pastors were aware of charges of "emotional sexual abuse". The BOT was not aware of any of the allegations until January 2018.

What I do not hear in this statement is:


Abuse did not happen and SVD was lying when she claimed abuse.

One of the things that struck me about the BOT report was the language of it. Words matter. The wording of the report was interesting. Since the full report will not be made available, all anyone knows is what the BOT tells us and what the victims tell us. The question regarding the investigation is: What did the BOT say?

First Topic

"1) regarding the allegation of physical sexual abuse made by Suzanne van Dyck against Mark Darling"

What follows is an analysis of the allegation of physical sexual abuse of SVD by MD.

Summary of the BOT conclusion on the charge of physical sexual abuse:

-Her individual allegation could not be substantiated

-Some pastors knew of alleged "emotional sexual abuse" prior to SVD's Tweet

-The BOT was not aware of the accusation of physical sexual abuse prior to January 24, 2018.

Here is the exact wording of the report.

"From the investigator’s report: “Based on the interviews conducted during this investigation, Suzanne van Dyck’s individual allegations of sexual abuse, by definition, could not be substantiated.”

While the investigation revealed that some pastors of Evergreen Church had seen the phrase “emotional sexual abuse” prior to Suzanne van Dyck’s post on an online forum on January 24, 2018, the EC BOT first learned of Suzanne van Dyck’s specific allegation of physical sexual abuse by Mark Darling from a post she made on an online forum on January 24, 2018.

The investigation determined that no one at Evergreen Church knew about this specific allegation prior to January 24, 2018."

My questions and thoughts.

From the wording, "regarding the allegation of physical sexual abuse made by SVD" and "SVDs individual allegations" I conclude that they are only reporting on physical sexual abuse alleged by SVD.

In addition, the conclusion is that the allegations were "unsubstantiated" (i.e. couldn't be proven). What stands out to me is that they did not say the allegations were false, they just said they couldn't be proven one way or another.

Another point, in the statement they went out of their way to emphasize they were commenting on the allegations of physical sexual abuse of SVD. They made no comment regarding any other women's accusations of physical sexual abuse. This, of course, could be because there were no other women who claimed physical sexual abuse, but it could also be that there were other women, but the board chose only to address Suzanne's charge. We will never know because the report was not made available.

What I hear in this statement is this:

We can't determine whether or not the charges of physical sexual abuse by MD against SVD happened. There is no evidence either way. What we do know is that prior to SVD's Tweet, some (doesn't say which ones, but obviously the BOT knows the names) pastors were aware of charges of "emotional sexual abuse". The BOT was not aware of any of the allegations until January 2018.

What I do not hear in this statement is:

Abuse did not happen and SVD was lying when she claimed abuse.

[GodisFaithful]

This is my response to Rebel's comments:

I am so glad that Suzanne's story and the stories of Victim A and C, and what we know of Natalie's story and Loey's story, are out there, because the BoT report failed to address the seriousness of emotional manipulation, in a deviant and sexual way, of Mark Darling's behavior. By saying what Mark did not do, they certainly downplayed what he did do. How can you not see the predatory nature of this when there are multiple women? Mark Darling was a troubled man and continues to be if he is not willing to see the damage that he did to these women. The BoT also did not address anything about how they planned to reach out to the women who were damaged and make some kind of restitution as a church.

The fact that Mark Darling was allowed, after some pastors knew of these kinds of reports, to pastor a church that reached out to young college age girls proved to be disastrous for Mark Darling. The fact that these reports are from many years ago does not make them any less serious. If you are a pastor, and you acted this way, you do not just wipe your mouth and proclaim to fellow pastors that you have learned your lesson, and then go on to deny that you ever did anything wrong. Thankfully, the BoT did see that Mark Darling needed to confess to some aberrant behavior and get some help. But the BoT really dropped the ball in reaching out to the victims in any significant way.  

Like you said, Rebel, this is very damaging when young women are treated in this way by a spiritual leader, even if the leader does not cross the line into physical contact. Why did the BoT not address the charge of at least one other woman where Mark Darling did cross the physical sexual abuse threshold?  Loey stated on facebook that she was physically assaulted by Mark Darling, and she said she reported it to at least one pastor and to the investigator, so why is that not addressed? They could have said, "One other woman came forward with a charge of physical sexual assault and it was unsubstantiated." I heard one of the BoT members, in his verbal report, say that they set out at the very beginning to investigate any other charges that came forward, besides Suzanne's.

I hope the BoT will release a fuller report, because I think what they put out there is causing a lot of confusion for members of ECC as to why Mark Darling's ordination was rescinded, and confusion for the victims as to why ECC is not reaching out to the ones, former members, who were damaged by Mark Darling's behavior and pastor's covering up Mark Darling's behavior.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

"Why did the BoT not address the charge of at least one other woman where Mark Darling did cross the physical sexual abuse threshold?  Loey stated on facebook that she was physically assaulted by Mark Darling, and she said she reported it to at least one pastor and to the investigator, so why is that not addressed? They could have said, "One other woman came forward with a charge of physical sexual assault and it was unsubstantiated." I heard one of the BoT members, in his verbal report, say that they set out at the very beginning to investigate any other charges that came forward, besides Suzanne's."

It says on their website (https://www.evergreenchurch.com/update/) that they hired Joan Harris to investigate "any related claims that arise," so it should have been included in the investigation and complete report.  Why didn't the BOT mention another woman's account besides Suzanne's?  My *guess* is because, at that time, Loey had not (according to my following of events) publicly shared that Mark physically sexually assaulted/violated/abused her.  They responded to Suzanne's allegation alone because hers was the only one that had been made public at the time the BOT summarized and shared information at their sole discretion.  It seems like what they shared was done to minimize the scope of the problem.

We have seen how some ECC'ers have taken "not substantiated" to mean that SVD is lying (and have said so directly).  It seems the BOT and ECC pastors are okay with allowing that doubt to linger.  There might be less doubt if more than one woman made the same allegation but it couldn't be proven/substantiated (again, the understanding being that it doesn't mean it didn't happen).  I think what the BOT released casts some shade at Suzanne and they are okay with that if it deflects attention away from the bad behavior of their pastors. 

So minimization and damage control is why I believe the BOT didn't mention the allegations of assault by any other woman. 

This is my response to Rebel's comments:

I am so glad that Suzanne's story and the stories of Victim A and C, and what we know of Natalie's story and Loey's story, are out there, because the BoT report failed to address the seriousness of emotional manipulation, in a deviant and sexual way, of Mark Darling's behavior. By saying what Mark did not do, they certainly downplayed what he did do. How can you not see the predatory nature of this when there are multiple women? Mark Darling was a troubled man and continues to be if he is not willing to see the damage that he did to these women. The BoT also did not address anything about how they planned to reach out to the women who were damaged and make some kind of restitution as a church.

The fact that Mark Darling was allowed, after some pastors knew of these kinds of reports, to pastor a church that reached out to young college age girls proved to be disastrous for Mark Darling. The fact that these reports are from many years ago does not make them any less serious. If you are a pastor, and you acted this way, you do not just wipe your mouth and proclaim to fellow pastors that you have learned your lesson, and then go on to deny that you ever did anything wrong. Thankfully, the BoT did see that Mark Darling needed to confess to some aberrant behavior and get some help. But the BoT really dropped the ball in reaching out to the victims in any significant way.  

Like you said, Rebel, this is very damaging when young women are treated in this way by a spiritual leader, even if the leader does not cross the line into physical contact. Why did the BoT not address the charge of at least one other woman where Mark Darling did cross the physical sexual abuse threshold?  Loey stated on facebook that she was physically assaulted by Mark Darling, and she said she reported it to at least one pastor and to the investigator, so why is that not addressed? They could have said, "One other woman came forward with a charge of physical sexual assault and it was unsubstantiated." I heard one of the BoT members, in his verbal report, say that they set out at the very beginning to investigate any other charges that came forward, besides Suzanne's.

I hope the BoT will release a fuller report, because I think what they put out there is causing a lot of confusion for members of ECC as to why Mark Darling's ordination was rescinded, and confusion for the victims as to why ECC is not reaching out to the ones, former members, who were damaged by Mark Darling's behavior and pastor's covering up Mark Darling's behavior.

[Linda]

This is what I have been wondering. Why were "at least 2 other women" mentioned? What is their story?

I am reminded that Suzanne posted this on Facebook on May 20, 2018

"After the airing of the Fox9 news story, another victim of sexual abuse by pastor Mark Darling messaged me on Facebook. I felt sick that there was another victim. Through her story and the dates she shared, I had a hunch that it was the victim that the other pastors had signed a confidentiality/NDA about in 1996.

When we left Evergreen in 2003ish, John told me in 1996 he and the other pastors (Doug Patterson, Brent Knox, Ken Johnson, Charlie Meyer, Mark Bowen) signed an agreement stating they would not reveal the details of what Mark Darling did to this woman. Over all these years John has upheld that agreement and not disclosed that information. Around that same time in 1996, Kathy Darling, Mark's wife had asked me on several occasions to pray for Mark because some woman was accusing Mark of sexual things. I have often felt this was the same woman.

Over the years, I have thought of her. I wondered when I came forward again (January 5, 2018) if she would see it on FB or Twitter and contact me. She did not until the Fox9 report aired. She had no idea that any of this was going on. Her husband was watching the nightly news and went and got her from another room. She Facebook messaged me almost immediately. The woman I referred to as the "NDA woman" had found me.

After the story aired and this woman contacted me, I finally felt comfortable talking with Evergreen Church Board of Trustee investigative attorney, Joan Harris.
Because Evergreen has chosen to not collaboratively select an investigator together and, maybe more importantly has mandated that Joan Harris' report will remain confidential only to the Board of Trustees, I felt it was not in my best interests to speak with Joan. If I did the BOT could, because they alone would see the final report, say Joan found the allegations false and no cover up by the other pastors even if the report said otherwise. Since the story aired though, Evergreen Church, is not able to control the narrative. The story is out. People still get to believe what they want. But in the end they were not allowed to only tell their side of the story.

This newly found victim had gone to pastor Brent Knox in 1996 and was assured "it" would be taken care of. How Brent Knox handled Mark's abuse of her was have the pastors sign a confidentiality/NDA agreement. In essence he ensured that the other pastors would not be able to speak of it instead of Mark Darling receiving the help he needed. She has since spoken with Joan Harris. This too, gave me more impetus to speak with Joan.."

According to Suzanne's post, a person contacted her after the original Fox 9 report, this person said she had gone to Brent Knox, and an NDA was signed among what appears to be the ECC Bloomington pastors at the time. Suzanne also states that this person spoke with Joan.

This brings up some questions that the BOT did not address in their report:

1) Did "NDA person" tell Joan her story of physical contact?
2) Was Joan informed of an NDA signed by the pastors in 1996? If so, was the BOT made aware of it?
3) What was in the NDA?
4) Was the BOT made aware of someone alleging that Brent talked to a woman alleging inappropriate sexual behavior by MD in 1996? If so, why didn't they include it in their report?
5) Was the BOT made aware of Victim A's claim that: "My husband and I expressed serious concerns that we had with Mark Darling to ECC [Evergreen Church] in a letter when we stopped attending Evergreen. We pleaded with one of the pastors that he address Mark's issues and get him appropriate help. I am not aware of any action taken at that time."
6) Are these the two women who are the "at least two" women in the BOT report?

"Why did the BoT not address the charge of at least one other woman where Mark Darling did cross the physical sexual abuse threshold?  Loey stated on facebook that she was physically assaulted by Mark Darling, and she said she reported it to at least one pastor and to the investigator, so why is that not addressed? They could have said, "One other woman came forward with a charge of physical sexual assault and it was unsubstantiated." I heard one of the BoT members, in his verbal report, say that they set out at the very beginning to investigate any other charges that came forward, besides Suzanne's."

It says on their website (https://www.evergreenchurch.com/update/) that they hired Joan Harris to investigate "any related claims that arise," so it should have been included in the investigation and complete report.  Why didn't the BOT mention another woman's account besides Suzanne's?  My *guess* is because, at that time, Loey had not (according to my following of events) publicly shared that Mark physically sexually assaulted/violated/abused her.  They responded to Suzanne's allegation alone because hers was the only one that had been made public at the time the BOT summarized and shared information at their sole discretion.  It seems like what they shared was done to minimize the scope of the problem.

We have seen how some ECC'ers have taken "not substantiated" to mean that SVD is lying (and have said so directly).  It seems the BOT and ECC pastors are okay with allowing that doubt to linger.  There might be less doubt if more than one woman made the same allegation but it couldn't be proven/substantiated (again, the understanding being that it doesn't mean it didn't happen).  I think what the BOT released casts some shade at Suzanne and they are okay with that if it deflects attention away from the bad behavior of their pastors. 

So minimization and damage control is why I believe the BOT didn't mention the allegations of assault by any other woman. 

This is my response to Rebel's comments:

I am so glad that Suzanne's story and the stories of Victim A and C, and what we know of Natalie's story and Loey's story, are out there, because the BoT report failed to address the seriousness of emotional manipulation, in a deviant and sexual way, of Mark Darling's behavior. By saying what Mark did not do, they certainly downplayed what he did do. How can you not see the predatory nature of this when there are multiple women? Mark Darling was a troubled man and continues to be if he is not willing to see the damage that he did to these women. The BoT also did not address anything about how they planned to reach out to the women who were damaged and make some kind of restitution as a church.

The fact that Mark Darling was allowed, after some pastors knew of these kinds of reports, to pastor a church that reached out to young college age girls proved to be disastrous for Mark Darling. The fact that these reports are from many years ago does not make them any less serious. If you are a pastor, and you acted this way, you do not just wipe your mouth and proclaim to fellow pastors that you have learned your lesson, and then go on to deny that you ever did anything wrong. Thankfully, the BoT did see that Mark Darling needed to confess to some aberrant behavior and get some help. But the BoT really dropped the ball in reaching out to the victims in any significant way.  

Like you said, Rebel, this is very damaging when young women are treated in this way by a spiritual leader, even if the leader does not cross the line into physical contact. Why did the BoT not address the charge of at least one other woman where Mark Darling did cross the physical sexual abuse threshold?  Loey stated on facebook that she was physically assaulted by Mark Darling, and she said she reported it to at least one pastor and to the investigator, so why is that not addressed? They could have said, "One other woman came forward with a charge of physical sexual assault and it was unsubstantiated." I heard one of the BoT members, in his verbal report, say that they set out at the very beginning to investigate any other charges that came forward, besides Suzanne's.

I hope the BoT will release a fuller report, because I think what they put out there is causing a lot of confusion for members of ECC as to why Mark Darling's ordination was rescinded, and confusion for the victims as to why ECC is not reaching out to the ones, former members, who were damaged by Mark Darling's behavior and pastor's covering up Mark Darling's behavior.