Pastor Mark Darling-Pastor who abused me

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]

I didn't want this troubling comment from GodisFaithful to get lost in the shuffle.

"I was around when all this was happening.  I knew about Mark's special girls and how he needed more than his wife to confide in.  I knew I would hate that in my marriage. Yuk!  But somehow I got brainwashed into thinking that Mark was a spiritual giant who could handle this with innocence.  After all, these girls were really sweet, pretty nice girls and some of them were getting married, usually to someone who  became a leader."

[Huldah]

Thank you, Linda, for the reminders. (Minor point: I don't understand the term "emotional incest" as used there, unless Mark is related to Scout.) But that whole list is disgusting. Those hugs, and those car rides, ugh!

There's a Christian blog on domestic violence that I follow. A lot of what they say about domestic abusers also holds true for abusive church leaders. A recent post said that a perpetrator of domestic violence "gains control of the mind of the target woman so that he can dictate the level of intimacy and sexual activity in the relationship." I was reminded of that post while reading those remarks from Scout.

By the way, according to the same writer, the chief trait that domestic abusers look for in a potential target is kindness. Something to think about.

[AlwaysNeedMoreInfo]

Hi folks, I'm a current GCM member and have been following this thread and Scout's Facebook exchanges since first learning of them several weeks ago. I've been aware of this forum for many years and periodically check in. I don't believe I've experienced or even seen any spiritual abuse through GCM, but I know a number of people who have left citing it as the reason. Most of them have completely cut ties with me, which I understand but it makes me sad. I miss my friends. Back on topic, I wanted to make a few points and then I'll go back to learning and waiting for more facts and information to come into the open. I'm going to be completely honest, and I hope that it's not taken as being harsh or dismissive, because that is not the intent.

First, in every situation I try to gather as many facts as possible and make an informed, rational decision about how to feel about it. Because of that, I do not automatically ascribe truth to Scout's claims. Conversely, I also do not ascribe truth to Mark's denial of the claims. I simply want to know more before I believe either party. I have known Mark for over 15 years. I've met with him privately as well as exchanged emails. I believe I know him quite well. Some of his family has even lived with mine in the past. What I know of his character tells me these claims aren't like him. However, I have certainly acted against my own character at times in the past when faced with temptation so I'm not saying he didn't or couldn't do these things. Just that it goes against who I know him to be. If proof of these allegations comes out I will be first in line demanding his permanent removal because frankly, I find them absolutely revolting.

Second, in regards to the quote from GodisFaithful regarding Mark's "special girls" that Linda referenced several posts above this one: In 15 years at the Rock I have not observed this. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but that since I've been there Mark has actually been pretty vocal specifically about his refusal to meet with women alone. Whether or not he follows through with that in practice, I don't know for sure, but he has made that point from the stage more times than I can count and I've never heard any of the women in the church talk about meeting with him privately. If it happened in the past, I sincerely believe the practice has stopped and has been stopped for quite a long time. The principle of not meeting privately with anyone of the opposite sex is something that my spouse and I specifically took directly from this church and made a cornerstone of our marriage.

I will keep following this thread and other posts and I look forward to more information coming out. I'm specifically eager to read the statement Scout read at her meeting that included Mark, Kathy, Mark Bowen, her counselor and her husband. I am also eagerly awaiting proof of the email offering $60,000 if she agreed to be quiet. As I understand it, she is in the process of looking for them. I understand that I am one of the few people who can readily pull up every personal email I've received in the last 20 years, so I will continue to patiently wait. As someone close to the entire Darling family, there is obviously a part of me that hopes all these allegations are false. There is another part of me that desperately wants Scout to be able to prove her claims because if they're true, she deserves to be believed and heard.

[IWishToRemainAnonymous]

About this: "I'm not saying it didn't happen, but that since I've been there Mark has actually been pretty vocal specifically about his refusal to meet with women alone."

Coulee Rock Community Church.
January 14, 2018.
25 minutes into the message.
Mentions giving a woman a ride to work.
Broke the "Never Alone With A Woman" rule unless someone else accompanied him.

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Thanks Always Need More Info for being up front about why you're here and sharing your perspective. 

I believe your experience with Mark and don't discount it. However, I want to point out that some people are very skilled at creating an identity for the masses, and then acting differently behind closed doors.  I was part of a different abusive church situation (as investigated by the denomination who verified abuse, and it was in the newspaper more than once--which I offer as "proof" since some are suspicious of spiritual abuse claims).  There were two groups of people: one group claiming "I was abused. I was treated this evil way by leaders. They (yelled at me, threatened me, caused estrangements in my family, etc.)" and another group who claimed "I know those leaders, and they would never do that.  That's not who they are.  I know their character.  They helped me.  They love me.  They have good hearts."  The second group was sincere and that was their truth and their experience, but what they didn't realize is that they were part of the manipulation--only shown the good side.  Leaders with (some) sinful intentions can't directly abuse everyone or they wouldn't be able to maintain their power.  They have to project an acceptable (and usually above acceptable--exemplary) persona in order to be able to manipulate some.

Consider teachers or coaches who are arrested for sexual abuse--most people say "I would never have thought them capable."  Most offenders don't look/seem/act like offenders.  They act like upstanding righteous individuals; otherwise they wouldn't have access to victims. This is why Mark's claims from stage about never meeting alone with women would be a great part of the creation of his perception of being "above reproach."  The more you talk about your own righteousness (as a side note, he really does talk about himself a lot, as an outside person I find this odd) and then act righteous most of the time, the more your reputation will be that of being above reproach and anyone who says differently will be easily dismissed.  That victimized minority can be ganged up on, blamed, and criticized much more easily than believing the sin of the perpetrator who has a platform to convince everyone of his good character.

It really doesn’t matter if a pastor is righteous 99% of the time if he abuses, exploits, and manipulates the other 1%.  Obviously I am not talking about making mistakes or normal sinful behavior, but the unrepentant grooming, unethical, and exploitative behavior Scout has described.  That disqualifies them from ministry until and only if that 1% is completely resolved.   Unfortunately it is difficult for someone with those predatory tendencies to be rehabilitated, a fact that Christians have a hard time accepting because of the forgiveness and redemption that is cornerstone to our faith.  But that is a different topic…

Always Need More Info, I appreciate your willingness to be open to information that comes out and I am not saying you would be included in the group of naysayers if abuse is confirmed.  I just wanted to share another perspective of how some people can be 100% sincere and honest in vouching for the character of an individual and still be wrong.

 Mark has actually been pretty vocal specifically about his refusal to meet with women alone. Whether or not he follows through with that in practice, I don't know for sure, but he has made that point from the stage more times than I can count and I've never heard any of the women in the church talk about meeting with him privately.

[araignee19]

Second, in regards to the quote from GodisFaithful regarding Mark's "special girls" that Linda referenced several posts above this one: In 15 years at the Rock I have not observed this. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but that since I've been there Mark has actually been pretty vocal specifically about his refusal to meet with women alone.

Hi AlwaysNeedMoreInfo. Thanks for the comments. I hope the truth comes out, whatever it may be, and personally think it is good to question both sides in a situation like this, and to hold judgment until all the facts are known (there is value to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty," and we do need to treat accusations of sexual misconduct, of any sort, carefully. I think some on this forum could benefit from remembering this, if I can risk saying that). 

I had one thought come up as I was reading your post, that I almost didn't share, as it is complete and total speculation and not in any way grounded in fact. But I can't seem to shake the thought, so I'll throw it out there. I was involved in a GC church in Colorado much more recently than many of the people on this forum, and can corroborate that the main message I always heard from the pulpit at church was that men and women were NEVER to be alone together. There was never cross gender counseling or discipleship. Even short car rides with someone of the opposite gender were highly discouraged. This was, in my opinion, taken to such an extreme as to be a hindrance to relationships. I always sort of wondered why there was such an incredible emphasis on this. I couldn't help wondering if it was in response to previous sexual sin at some point in the history of the church that maybe wasn't addressed completely publicly, and I have continued to wonder that since. It would be completely believable that at some point, there had been sexual sin, and a new policy of "no contact" was implemented to keep it from happening again, without ever really addressing the underlying issue. I guess my point is that just because someone says something, we don't necessarily know what their motivation for saying it is. It is possible that Mark's emphasis to avoid being alone with women is not coming from an innocent place.

I really don't know why I felt the need to say all this. I've probably gone and made just about every person on this thread mad at me...

[Differentstrokes]

I don't want this to get off topic, but i sincerely hope that some of these current GC'ers will take the time to read through peoples stories, and maybe that will prompt some good changes ect... MAybe some better understanding of why people leave and stuff... just seems like an opportunity to open up a dialogue, it could be really good.

[Peace]

There are many current GCxers following Scout's allegations on this forum, social media or through people at Evergreen. Conversations I have been a part of have been fairly neutral. I am not connected closely with the Darling family, but I know some individuals who are. Those people haven't been running to Mark's defense or slandering Scout. From my limited viewpoint, people are reading, following, waiting, praying and are eager to see what takes place in the weeks and months ahead. I don't know Always Need More Info, but I am also one who will be very vocal if these allegations are proven true through an investigation and swift action is not taken. I believe there are many of us who want to have a dialogue, but dialogue simply cannot take place unless both sides come to the table with an open mind.


 

[blonde]

I had a friend who was raped and it went to court. It was almost nearly impossible to prove it, even with lawyers. At a basic level, it is a he-said, she-said. But this a very complex case and nothing resolved. They did not go to jail as they were expats with embassy-ties and she was a woman whom could not prove it.

My point is or one side-point, is, doesn't the Bible teach even the appearance of evil should not occur. To King James bomb it, it says, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." 1 Thessalonians 5:22. I have thought that Mark is not even doing that. I will be a hard hard road, as it is quite evident that Mark and his gang cannot afford a true open investigation at NetGrace. That is why they are not going thru the route of NetGrace.org. That is why they sent a lawyer after Susan.

My one question or two related questions to this topic is for Susan or anyone, does 1 Thessalonians 5:22 apply to "pastor" Mark Darling and if he doesn't disavow this appearance of evil, and step down, will he at all be repentant at all? I have my answer. What's yours. (Two people I know personally at Evergreen give Mark the benefit of the doubt but not Susan, and nothing of abstain from all appearance of evil is on their lips.)

And secondly, I just had to cite the verse and the other part is, doesn't Paul teach, and I am sure I heard Mark Darling preach that the Bible teaches that the faithful, that is us, we should not use courts? I was under Mark's teaching for some years. Darling said to work it out among ourselves. re: 1 Corinthians 6:1-6, and that is exactly what NetGrace would be doing; Mark is going to a lawyer and not even following Scripture he taught. Susan is again taking the biblical road and Darling lawyered up.

-Blonde

re: 1 Corinthians 6:1-6 New King James Version (NKJV) 6 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? 5 I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? 6 But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers!

[Janet Easson Martin]

To All:

I was hoping that someone would do a GOFUNDME campaign to help with Suzanne's necessary legal expenses!  I see that one has very recently been set up by Chris Johnson on her Facebook page.  What a wonderful thing. This would not just be for her, but for representation for other victims of the pastor in question as well, who have contacted Suzanne.

It's tragic when victims of an abuser must pay a considerable amount of money to make sure they are fairly protected and equally represented when the offending party has formal legal representation; and has chosen NOT to work together with a third party investigator such as the GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) organization.  So, I pray she and the others will receive in this financial support some moral support as well for doing her best to properly expose evil.

This would not have been necessary had the pastor in question stepped down years ago from his position of authority and received counseling as was agreed to; OR the leaders of the GCC Board who knew about it removed him back then.  GCC Board members who knew about the claim are responsible also for taking no action.

[blonde]

Hey ExGCCer, it sounds like you are like defending Mark Darling. Like speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Most people on this forum have a very different view of Mark Darling. I'm confused by your verbal demeanor. If you want, go over to this other thread about the origins of Evergreen. Some years back about a letter-an Open Letter to Mark Darling.

 Read this thread: http://forum.gcmwarning.com/people-and-places-of-gc/open-letter-to-mark-darling/

It is really how Mark Darling started the church, and by nefarious means it was started, Evergreen.

You can keep blabbing how this is not the Mark Darling you know, but to-date Mark has not taken up the offer to go thru NetGrace. But he and the church he is part of will not go thru that, as all facts will be aired.

If you know Mark Darling, go to Evergreen now, go up to him and ask him to go to NetGrace to close the deal and get it all squared away. NetGrace has lawyers and investigators on staff to get to the bottom. Mark Darling cannot afford for the truth to get out, that is why he lawyered up.

Cheers mate!

-Blonde

[Gladtobegone]

Reading all these threads.  Wow.

I remember Mark Darling in Ames.  He had mental health issues.  Was taken off leadership at one point.  They as usual were secretive as to why. 

I remember one of his sermons where he called the parishioners his Bride.  He also called himself a prophet.

Anyone reading these posts still part of this church movement should take heed.  This is a cult.  It took me too long to find out (10 years)

I was definitely spiritually abused.  I also had a leader showed up unexpectedly at my house with the apology letter to convince me to come back.     There were so much toxic control and there still is. 

To those who think he’s a great speaker.... Cult leaders are always great speakers, orators! 

I worry as my daughter is in the MPLS area and naive as to church abuse.  She is vulnerable.

[RicktRoll]

There were so much toxic control and there still is.

Can you prove there still is "abuse" going on?

A lot of people in this thread have been claiming spiritual abuse from 10+ years ago.

Excusing whether or not what these statements claim is true or not, has anyone actually gone to an Evergreen location in the last year, or been a part of the church within the last few years and still experienced this?

I am a current GCC'r and experience none of this, nor am I a sheep that does everything that I'm told to do. I think with my brain. I challenge their thoughts and actions and from my standpoint, they are very open to hearing opinions and haven't shunned me because of it.

I will also like to state my apologies for my previous emotional comments. They were done out of heightened emotions and I apologize for the tone I took with them. The points I was trying to make were lost by the harshness of my words chosen.

[GodisFaithful]

Let's not forget the dismal record of honesty so far in how Evergreen is trying to tell this story about Scout.

Suzanne was fully heard in this matter.  (Against Evergreen's pastor's wishes, since they crossed out stuff they did not like.  That is not listening.)

20 years ago.  (Actually, 17 years ago.  Why is Evergreen rounding up? So it looks a little better?)

No further action steps were required by the Van Dykes or the mediator. (Nope again.  There were 2 steps of action asked for and agreed to.)

The mediator.  (There was no mediator, which is someone who represents both sides. It was Suzanne's counselor.)

Van Dykes received over a million dollar gift to start a church in Berlin. (How sadly laughable. The $ went to GCM, Van Dykes raised support.)

"within a year of the mediation process"  (What? I thought everyone had been heard and satisfied.  A mediation process??)

We have nothing but good will for the Van Dykes.  (If this is how Evergreen treats friends, I would hate to be on their bad side.  Why the Evergreen public meeting where people are told not to talk to the Van Dykes or their siblings? Why the lie about how they are in counseling? Why the insinuation that something is so wrong with them that you can't talk to them? Hmmmm...is something being covered up? And why the mean comment about how they should never have been sent to Germany? Is this considered good will?)

If Suzanne would like another private meeting they would welcome it.  (She already tried that and got nothing.)

We are in the process of hiring a reputable third party investigator.  (Turned out to be a lawyer that was representing only them.)

[Linda]

Discerning,

Your comment on the Holy Spirit. Spot on.

[Sheeple]

RicktRoll,
We just left Evergreen two years ago, and many of these painful practices were still happening. Strict discipline for the kids, homeschooling was the remedy for everything, women’s opinions were not heard. When we left at first the pastors seemed genuinely concerned for our spiritual wellbeing...like we wouldn’t be let into the pearly gates once we left the church. But then the tone changed and we were specifically told not to expect to hear from our Evergreen friends anymore and that the best use of our time would be to focus on our “new church friends”. It’s sad it has to be that way....

[Differentstrokes]

I left a GCM church 3 years ago and it was the same as above ^^

[Rebel in a Good Way]

RickTRoll, spiritual abuse is a very complex and subtle phenomenon.  I'm not sure what you would accept as proof?  This is a serious question.  How do you "prove" wounds to the soul?  What would make you say..."yes, that is spiritual abuse"?  Again, a sincere question on my part.  There are known patterns of coercion and control.  It's long, but I wrote a post about the BITE Model and how the teachings of GCC result in something called undue influence.  It's a combination of my personal experience as well as their most recent publications as posted on their website and mirrors many experiences from this forum.  

Another thread to consider might be the Consequences of Spiritual Abuse...if so many people leave a denomination experiencing these same results, what does that say about the church?  I think it's a stretch to dismiss patterns (when things happen over and over among people who are strangers to one another, and who were in different GCC church locations and different times) as a result of the individual's perception/personal sin/grudge/bitterness.  

Words affiliated with spiritual abuse are coercive control, undue influence, high demand groups, high control groups, predatory alienation, fringe churches, and cult-like churches (plus more I'm sure).  These all speak to an imbalance of power in which people with power (with or without a title of pastor) receive benefits from the entire system, usually at the expense of those with less power.  I know many Christians believe that we are not to seek power and that power in and of itself is bad, but this causes us to be blind to the actual systems in play.  Jesus himself addressed the power structures of his day and taught that his followers are supposed to live in an upside down kingdom where the last shall be first and the first shall be last. GCC uses a lot of words to suggest this is model they follow (humble, servant leadership), but they also teach submission and obedience to human leaders.  There is inherent power in that, even if you believe the leaders are benevolent and appointed by God.  While you will always be able to find authors who use the bible to teach that church members should submit to the counsel of their pastors, from a theological standpoint, this is outside the realm of orthodox ecclesiology. Others have written about this on the forum, regarding GCC leaders taking the Moses mantle.  I understand that people in these systems truly believe the bible teaches this, but it is a twisting of Scripture to maintain power.

This is part of the reason that spiritual abuse is being discussed in step with Suzanne's assertions.  Without this unbiblical power structure in place, abuse could not continue once exposed. I have seen some people completely try to separate the issues of sexual and spiritual abuse, but the unhealthy culture of GCC is what allowed for Suzanne and the other women to be groomed (I write it that way because I do believe them, looking again at "patterns" and how power/control work).

Every single person who has ever been in a controlling group believes they "think with their brain" and does not blindly follow. Otherwise they would not stay.  However, the amount of freedom you think you have might be an illusion.  Mary Alice Chrnalger explains this very well in her book, Twisted Scriptures, which I recommend for GCC people.  It is likely that you are allowed to challenge and ask questions because in the end you will not go outside of the leaders' desires.  And many of your thoughts are probably in line with the leader's beliefs.  In reality, you are "allowed" to have many, many different kind of thoughts/believes, which provides a sense of freedom.  But when it comes to disagreeing with some important core beliefs--often the ones used to maintain power--that is where you will see your freedom restricted.  As many people on this forum have said, they are asked to leave and shunned at that point.  So, you have "freedom" as long as you stay in the bounds set up by leadership.  Clearly all churches need some boundaries, but the boundaries of GCC serve to give leaders lots of control.

I'm glad you're asking questions--spiritual abuse is a very complicated issue and because of how our minds work, sometimes very difficult to see (Willful Blindness is another good resource).  I encourage you to keep reading and be open.  If you can specify more what you are looking for in terms of "proof" of abuse, people can probably give you examples.  You are not likely to find things as blatant as "God won't love you unless you give us 25% of your income," or "we don't really value you here at this church because you don't serve enough," etc.

The amount of shunning alone mentioned in this forum is a huge cause for concern.  This is not a normal Christian practice.  

Sorry, for some reason the "quote" feature didn't quite work when I tried to respond to RicktRoll, his comments are below:

Can you prove there still is "abuse" going on?

A lot of people in this thread have been claiming spiritual abuse from 10+ years ago.

Excusing whether or not what these statements claim is true or not, has anyone actually gone to an Evergreen location in the last year, or been a part of the church within the last few years and still experienced this?

I am a current GCC'r and experience none of this, nor am I a sheep that does everything that I'm told to do. I think with my brain. I challenge their thoughts and actions and from my standpoint, they are very open to hearing opinions and haven't shunned me because of it.

[/quote]

[Huldah]

I am a current GCC'r and experience none of this, nor am I a sheep that does everything that I'm told to do. I think with my brain. I challenge their thoughts and actions and from my standpoint, they are very open to hearing opinions and haven't shunned me because of it.

(Not my original post. I re-thought it and decided to do some of editing & condensing.)

Okay, now I admit I'm curious.

Rick, would you call yourself a member of the inner circle at Evergreen? Do you or does any member of your family hold a position within the church, such as teacher, study leader, or ministry director? Or do you consider yourself a close friend to someone who holds such a position? You see, if you're part of the trusted inner circle, you may have greater leeway to express a difference of opinion than a typical member has. This may hold doubly true if, as your screen name implies, you're male.

However, if you're one of the rank-and-file members, then would you cite at least one instance where you directly challenged the leadership at Evergreen, especially in a matter of importance? Two instances would be even better. What was the issue, and how did the challenge go down? Were you allowed to make your concerns known to the membership in general, or did it have to be secretive with the leaders? Assuming you're just one of the little guys, I'd really like to hear how some of these challenges of yours went.

[blonde]

Gladtobegone wrote that Mark alluded to himself as a prophet. That is TRUE TRUE TRUE.

The web-MP3 site that has Mark saying this was just about 5-6 years ago developed. Go here: www.whoismarkdarling.com

Listen to it, it's short and the last bell it is Mark saying he is a prophet. They are all Mark Darling quotes and it is him speaking. No narration by anyone, no comments, no-nothing but Mark talking. ALL MARK DARLING who calls and alludes to himself as a prophet.

-Blonde