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.
De-Commissioned Forum
August 18, 2019, 08:22:42 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: 10 Reasons I Don't Believe Suzanne van Dyck  (Read 9371 times)
PietWowo
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 160



« Reply #40 on: July 04, 2018, 07:36:01 pm »

Pietwowo, thanks for your response.  I am a little confused about the phrase "jumping to conclusions" at this point.  While the BOT did not release many details about what misconduct entailed, I think we are past the point of thinking maybe his behavior was minimally inappropriate. 

First of all, we have several victim accounts, which you are free to dismiss.  Second, Joan Harris determined that: “the investigation does support the fact that Mark Darling, while holding a position of authority, engaged in inappropriate conduct. . . .”  Specifically, this conduct included spending time alone with women in private settings and inappropriate conversations with women of a sexual nature." Mentioning his position of authority indicates abuse or misuse of the power differential for his own benefit and to the detriment of others.  Third, the BOT, who read the entirety of the report, found that Mark's behavior was inappropriate to the point of rescinding his ordination.

I realize it can be confusing and we are all left with many questions, but we're past the point of thinking that knowing the context would minimize the seriousness of the misconduct.

According to ECC's own investigation, Mark Darling has indeed walked around with an unrepentant heart and other pastors failed to hold him accountable.  With this kind of darkness, Mark asking Suzanne to listen to him have sex is not really unbelievable.

Let's assume that what you say is what happened. Ok, he spent time alone with women in a private setting. That by itself is not sin, but I will agree that it is not a wise thing to do. Having said that from what I understand his family and her were close, so sometimes with that confidence, one feels more free and I can see how that can happen. We all do things that are not wise to do.

Inappropriate conversations of a sexual nature. By itself that is very vague. Give you an example. I know a pastor here who asked his whole congregation to raise their hand if they had sex on their wedding night. (BTW, this pastor is not in any associated with GCx, total different denomination.) That's an inappropriate question. But he could have been a lot more inappropriate. What I'm saying is that we need to know more about this conversation than just this to make a correct judgement. It's like saying someone sinned... Did he kill someone or did he covet his neighbour's car. I'm sure you would agree that this would be totally different. Also, keep in mind that they were close and sometimes with close relationships, people talk more openly about private matters. Don't take it out of that context. But I'm sure it was inappropriate.

Again, one thing that would be very clear to me is if he wasn't accountable and if he had been approached, but wasn't open to change or if the leadership tried to cover sins up.

Also, let me make sure I understand.... John Van Dyke was a pastor and she was his wife, correct? If that's the case Mark Darling and her would be more like peers verses a level of authority. If I'm not correct on this, please let me know. If I am correct on this, then we couldn't really talk much about abuse. But still we wouldn't want to have inappropriate conversations. Just like Mark Darling shouldn't have inappropriate conversations about sex with his biological sister. But if they were "fellow elders" there would have been and should have been a real closeness there.

Logged
Huldah
Private Forum Access
Household Name (300+ Posts)
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 743



« Reply #41 on: July 04, 2018, 07:57:55 pm »

I think you gave the example of David. Very good example. He still was a man after God's own heart.

Major difference between Mark Darling and King David:

David repented fully and sincerely the first time he was rebuked for his transgression with Bathsheba.

Mark has never repented, never apologized, never even admitted the truth about what he did to Suzanne and the others, as far as we can know. For nearly two decades, he has steadily hardened his heart against his victims. This is not what it means to be a man after God's own heart.

Logged
PietWowo
Veteran (100-299 Posts)
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 160



« Reply #42 on: July 04, 2018, 08:20:07 pm »

I think you gave the example of David. Very good example. He still was a man after God's own heart.

Major difference between Mark Darling and King David:

David repented fully and sincerely the first time he was rebuked for his transgression with Bathsheba.

Mark has never repented, never apologized, never even admitted the truth about what he did to Suzanne and the others, as far as we can know. For nearly two decades, he has steadily hardened his heart against his victims. This is not what it means to be a man after God's own heart.



If that is true, I think you got a good point there. As I have said before this is one of the main issues....
Logged
EscapeFromSummitview
Regular (15-99 Posts)
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 24



« Reply #43 on: July 05, 2018, 09:21:19 am »

Quote
Let's assume that what you say is what happened. Ok, he spent time alone with women in a private setting. That by itself is not sin, but I will agree that it is not a wise thing to do. Having said that from what I understand his family and her were close, so sometimes with that confidence, one feels more free and I can see how that can happen. We all do things that are not wise to do.

Inappropriate conversations of a sexual nature. By itself that is very vague. Give you an example. I know a pastor here who asked his whole congregation to raise their hand if they had sex on their wedding night. (BTW, this pastor is not in any associated with GCx, total different denomination.) That's an inappropriate question. But he could have been a lot more inappropriate. What I'm saying is that we need to know more about this conversation than just this to make a correct judgement.

Well it's convenient that the BOT chose not to release a full report, or even a summary of the report with names removed as offered by Joan, because Mark Darling defenders can still defend him and claim we don't know the "whole story." However the BOT did read the entire report, and decided to revoke his ordination over it.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
SimplePortal 2.1.1