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.
