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.

[AgathaL'Orange]

I do not know why people did or didn’t act in the way some people think they should have, but in speaking with my own husband about this, this week, he said how he could see the way he was in GC as being a Yes-man.  He said that he would basically have had a normalcy bias where everything must be normal because our minds are wired to see things this way. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias


We both commented how the natural flow of our marriage was interrupted by the insertion of GC between us.  He was meant to be more zealous and passionate.  I was to be more submissive and pleasing.  And yet when we left and washed the GC teaching off of us, our conflict almost disappeared.  We were happily married and without that constant outside voice critiquing couples and exhorting to do better, be more, try harder, and use our family solely for the kingdom of God, we realized just how happy we were.  

We were yes people who went along with much.  Even while convincing ourselves we were examining all teachings carefully.  I could see how it would be easy to fall into this.   We both agreed that we overlooked all kinds of things both as normalcy bias and as a desire not to criticize leaders and loved ones.


And in some situations, it’s not black and white initially.  Sometimes people don’t know what has happened to them and perhaps they even feel complicit or guilty or ashamed.  Or maybe they are scared.  Or maybe they were silenced.  We don’t know, but it’s clear Scout doesn’t need to respond here.  I hope you guys all eventually get your questions answered.  On both sides.  


As you can see here in this forum, some current attendees  at GCx are not afraid to respond emotionally and with great anger and lots of personal attacks.  This is scary to many people.   When it comes from someone in a leadership position it is more scary.  When it comes from someone who has the power to excommunicate you or isolate you from your community, even more scary.  


People can ridicule, berate, “innocently” question, or wield words and verses as baseball bats or list their good-people credentials and lists of helped people as another notch in the belt, and it’s just confirmation of their fears.  

Scenario:
Someone makes a claim.

Defender against claim:  *Screams rants attacks* or *guilts shames silences*

Current members:  Why didn’t you speak out?  

Claimant:  Well, because I was afraid of being screamed and ranted at and attacked.  And it looks like I was right.  

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Agatha's Comment: "He [your husband] said that he would basically have had a normalcy bias where everything must be normal because our minds are wired to see things this way."

You honestly believe that neither John VD, the other pastors in question, nor anyone else would have said or done something about alleged sexual abuse because of a normalcy bias?!

[AgathaL'Orange]

Why so mean to me, DLM?

 Yes, I do think that could happen.  Absolutely.  For abused people as well.  


It happens all the time in various ways and various situations.  Heart attack pain, health conditions, abuse, codependency, etc.  People do not always recognize at first what tragedy is happening.  Go watch the numerous tragedy videos available online. (Or don’t actually!! But you know what I mean!)  Tragedy sometimes looks appalling normal.  Until it’s not.


Maybe that isn’t what happened here?  I don’t know!  


Let’s just stop mocking anyone.

Let this get investigated and results be made public.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

I did not intend to be mean to you. If I came across as harsh I apologize.

It's said, the most likely explanation is usually the correct one. In this case the most likely explanation for John not saying something about his wife's sexual assault is that he did not know about it. He did not know about it because it was not communicated to him. It was not communicated to him because it did not happen.

Is that more likely or is the fact that he developed a "normalcy bias" where the sexual abuse of his wife seemed normal to him?

And I'm actually standing up for John not attacking him. Your explanation for his silence is far more damning than mine.

[GodisFaithful]

There is an article on nbc.com if you google Larry Nassar, where Scout is interviewed for a possibility of telling her story of abuse. It's Judge Aquilina who is attempting to get stories of sexual abuse into the light. 

Not techy at all so can't give you a link but I googled it.

A close friend of mine had Larry Nassar as her doc as a young girl in gymnastics.  He did not abuse her, but she and her parents were is disbelief for a long time.

So don't know if anything will come of this.  I doubt Scout would go that far if she is making stuff up, but you can judge for yourself.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

"Three decades ago."

"I will literally get on a plane with my mom, book a hotel, and I will be there," said Suzanne van Dyck, 51, an interior designer from the Minneapolis area who said she was abused three decades ago.

I have no idea, but she has hinted to abuse in her life at a younger age.

[AgathaL'Orange]

I have no idea either about Suzanne’s bio. 

[Rebel in a Good Way]

Please think about all possible options GTA.  The whole world does not revolve around Mark Darling.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Here is a post that Jessica (Mark's daughter) put on John van Dyke's most recent FB thread. Since he doesn't seem to want to answer any questions maybe Scout could help out on a couple of these.

Do you remember me? I remember you very well. I have great memories of you and your family. I'm posting here because I need to get something off my chest and I'm begging you to listen to me. My family and I are living in the mess made by the accusations of your wife. Many have wondered where you are in all of this. We've only seen 4 or so comments that are lacking specific clarity as to what it is you believe from everything your wife has claimed. I don't personally believe you are making these comments, and if it is you, you've left enough space in your comments for alternative interpretations. It seems intentional. John, I know that you know the truth. Would you be willing to give me a call and/or make a video statement for people following this story and answer the following questions in no uncertain terms (I think this is warranted given the magnitude of what is going on. This is not a joke):

1. Have you read my brothers letter "The Reckoning". If not, here's a link (https://www.dropbox.com/.../jcue3q.../The%20Reckoning.pdf...). If you have read it, what are your thoughts. And please comment on the substance of it.

2. I know that you know the answer to this already, but please, for everyone else: Do you believe that my father ever took part in sexual misconduct with your wife, and what was that misconduct specifically.

3. Do you believe Mark EVER counseled a woman alone. Given that Evergreen has a strict rule that this is never allowed, you would be aware of this rule.

4. If you were to believe the second question is true, how do you explain the impracticality of the fact that your wife would've been gone for hours on end with 3 young kids. Did you not get suspicious? Combined with the fact that my mother would also need to be just as aloof to not suspect anything from my father, this story breaks down immediately. How do you answer that?

5. If indeed you believe that there was sexual misconduct, why in the world did you not confront the man that was one of your closest friends (not to mention, this was allegedly with your wife)?

6. Why did you leave Berlin and the church? Why did you then cut off all communication with the church without telling anyone your plans? What happened in Berlin?

7. Do you actually believe there are other "victims" and with the current stories from "victim a" and "victim c" lacking any actual evidence, crimes, or even something as simple as a date of when this happened, how can you stand with these other "victims" in confidence that these stories are even remotely true and how in the world did my dad have the time to carry on up to 7 relationships like this?

8. In your longest response to date, you refer to your wife as "Suzanne", and not "my wife". Why is that? I usually refer to my close friends and family with a possessive sense, like "my husband" or "my brother".

9. Has your wife EVER shown a pattern of deception or lying? I hate to ask this, but it must be done. We had no control over the fact that this was brought straight to social media by Suzanne, so now we have to put everything on the table.

10. From everything I remember about you, John, I would assume you would be responding to this situation in the complete opposite way from how you are responding now. It seems as if all the wonderful things I remember about you are gone, but I don't want to believe that.
Not intending to be difficult: --- I won't accept any answers that are not over a phone call or in a video statement ---. Your last post contains striking similarities to the wording of Suzanne's previous posts and it just doesn't sound like you. I want to see your face or hear your voice.

Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Jessica.

[G_Prince]

[Differentstrokes]

 

[Linda]

If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Matthew 18 tells us what to do if we catch a brother/sister sinning.

First, we go to them.

Next, if they don't listen, we take one or two others along.

Finally, we tell the church.

From what Suzanne has already posted here we know that:

First, she went to Mark alone. At Baker's Square. 23 years ago.
Here is a link.

http://forum.gcmwarning.com/people-and-places-of-gc/pastor-mark-darling-pastor-that-abused-me/80/

So, according to Matthew 18 she first did the correct thing.

According to her writing, that didn't go too well. In fact, she says another pastor's wife rebuked her for this and intimidated her so much that she decided to comply and "worked the program".

After 5 years, still feeling troubled, she entered counseling. Her therapist helped orchestrate a meeting with witnesses. In this case, all seem to be on the same page that a meeting took place and that those present were Suzanne, John, Mark D and Kathy D, Mark B, and the therapist. So, there is agreement as to a meeting taking place and agreement as to who was there.

Here is the link with Suzanne's take on that meeting.

http://forum.gcmwarning.com/people-and-places-of-gc/pastor-mark-darling-pastor-that-abused-me/msg14372/#msg14372

Biblically, according to Suzanne's testimony, Matthew 18 has been followed. Step one didn't work. On to step two.

Also, according to her testimony, there was an agreed upon therapy plan that involved:
1) Mark D stepping down for a period of time, and
2) Mark D getting counseling

Now, things get tricky.

The van Dycks went to Germany and while there learned that the therapy plan that had been agreed upon didn't happen because Mark D. felt it unnecessary. At this point, they made a decision to leave GCC/ECC and returned home.

My question to those posting who think it was a mistake to use social media is: Just how would a person in a GCC church go about following Matthew 18 and "telling the church". There is no meaningful membership. There are no congregational meetings.

Should a person just show up on a Sunday, rush the stage, and tell people their story?

When step 2 of Matthew 18 is followed and a resolution is agreed upon by all, but then the agreed upon steps are not implemented, what can a person do? They have already notified the pastors. The pastors didn't implement the plan that was agreed upon to bring resolution.

This is the problem when there is no meaningful participation of a congregation. When all decisions are made by the pastors in executive session, and there is no accountability, anything can happen.

Clearly, there are a lot of questions here. Clearly, an investigation that is led by an attorney who is consulting the ECC board as to how to proceed ("any thoughts on a reply") is not an "independent" investigation. An independent investigator, would not be asking one of the parties involved for advice on how to proceed.

There needs to be an independent investigation and transparency of results.

Some here have expressed that they don't want the results made public because it will make Suzanne look bad when she is proven wrong. First of all, she said she is fine with the results being made public. Secondly, she should look bad and be publicly called out if she is making all this up, posing as other victims and making up stories, and sneaking onto her husband's timeline and posting as him on Facebook!

Likewise, if Mark did this, he should be called out publicly and there should be consequences.

But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.

[Linda]

G_Prince, you always make me smile.

[JessicaNoelDarling]

If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Matthew 18 tells us what to do if we catch a brother/sister sinning.

First, we go to them.

Next, if they don't listen, we take one or two others along.

Finally, we tell the church.

From what Suzanne has already posted here we know that:

First, she went to Mark alone. At Baker's Square. 23 years ago.
Here is a link.

http://forum.gcmwarning.com/people-and-places-of-gc/pastor-mark-darling-pastor-that-abused-me/80/

So, according to Matthew 18 she first did the correct thing.

According to her writing, that didn't go too well. In fact, she says another pastor's wife rebuked her for this and intimidated her so much that she decided to comply and "worked the program".

After 5 years, still feeling troubled, she entered counseling. Her therapist helped orchestrate a meeting with witnesses. In this case, all seem to be on the same page that a meeting took place and that those present were Suzanne, John, Mark D and Kathy D, Mark B, and the therapist. So, there is agreement as to a meeting taking place and agreement as to who was there.

Here is the link with Suzanne's take on that meeting.

http://forum.gcmwarning.com/people-and-places-of-gc/pastor-mark-darling-pastor-that-abused-me/msg14372/#msg14372

Biblically, according to Suzanne's testimony, Matthew 18 has been followed. Step one didn't work. On to step two.

Also, according to her testimony, there was an agreed upon therapy plan that involved:
1) Mark D stepping down for a period of time, and
2) Mark D getting counseling

Now, things get tricky.

The van Dycks went to Germany and while there learned that the therapy plan that had been agreed upon didn't happen because Mark D. felt it unnecessary. At this point, they made a decision to leave GCC/ECC and returned home.

My question to those posting who think it was a mistake to use social media is: Just how would a person in a GCC church go about following Matthew 18 and "telling the church". There is no meaningful membership. There are no congregational meetings.

Should a person just show up on a Sunday, rush the stage, and tell people their story?

When step 2 of Matthew 18 is followed and a resolution is agreed upon by all, but then the agreed upon steps are not implemented, what can a person do? They have already notified the pastors. The pastors didn't implement the plan that was agreed upon to bring resolution.

This is the problem when there is no meaningful participation of a congregation. When all decisions are made by the pastors in executive session, and there is no accountability, anything can happen.

Clearly, there are a lot of questions here. Clearly, an investigation that is led by an attorney who is consulting the ECC board as to how to proceed ("any thoughts on a reply") is not an "independent" investigation. An independent investigator, would not be asking one of the parties involved for advice on how to proceed.

There needs to be an independent investigation and transparency of results.

Some here have expressed that they don't want the results made public because it will make Suzanne look bad when she is proven wrong. First of all, she said she is fine with the results being made public. Secondly, she should look bad and be publicly called out if she is making all this up, posing as other victims and making up stories, and sneaking onto her husband's timeline and posting as him on Facebook!

Likewise, if Mark did this, he should be called out publicly and there should be consequences.

But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.

Since it wasn't addressed in the other thread, I'll post it here:
Linda,

This is slightly off-topic, but it was spurred on by seeing how consistent you tend to jump in for Suzanne, or for questions that there are no easy answers to. What's been your driving motivation all of these years? Honest question. There really hasn't been that much evidence presented in this situation to assume my father is guilty of anything, but you happily jumped in to support Suzanne and it seems like you became quick friends. My presumption is that most of the folks who quickly picked sides already had beef. What's been your beef in a nutshell (?) because from where I'm standing, I've witnessed the gospel reach many people all the while being delivered from an organization that, while imperfect, is committed to delivering the gospel message to whoever will listen. I have NO basis for understanding what drives you to the lengths you've gone to discredit everything and anything related to Evergreen or GCC. What has hurt you so much? The reality is, the majority of the people providing perspective from the other side of this conversation know Mark much better than you ever did, but you continue to be so adamant on knowing Mark to be a devious, awful person. You didn't even know Suzanne before siding with her. It's telling. I don't even think you believe this illustrates a problem, but it so clearly does. This forum is practically your part time job (not trying to sound mean). My opinion from everything I've witnessed is that the truth, despite what you say, is not your main concern. I don't think you want "healing" like you say. It seems apparent that you want to see destruction. Outside folks who know nothing about GCC have read this stuff and thought the same thing about this forum and the folks who regularly contribute. Can you understand where I'm coming from and why I'm asking this? If someone read this forum before attending a GCC church, they would probably assume that flames would shoot out as soon as they entered the doors / someone would point out and say, you're fat, go away / all leaders are secret and cunning perverts / Jim McCotter helped fake the moon landing (humor is good, right?) etc. etc. etc. It just seems so disproportionately inflammatory reading the content of this site, and even on this thread, compared to reality, which is quite nice actually. I'm trying to understand your world because no one I know, inside or outside GCC can identify with it. I want to be able to empathize. Help me understand.

[omelianchuk]

If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Matthew 18 tells us what to do if we catch a brother/sister sinning.

First, we go to them.

Next, if they don't listen, we take one or two others along.

Finally, we tell the church.

From what Suzanne has already posted here we know that:

First, she went to Mark alone. At Baker's Square. 23 years ago.
Here is a link.

http://forum.gcmwarning.com/people-and-places-of-gc/pastor-mark-darling-pastor-that-abused-me/80/

So, according to Matthew 18 she first did the correct thing.

According to her writing, that didn't go too well. In fact, she says another pastor's wife rebuked her for this and intimidated her so much that she decided to comply and "worked the program".

After 5 years, still feeling troubled, she entered counseling. Her therapist helped orchestrate a meeting with witnesses. In this case, all seem to be on the same page that a meeting took place and that those present were Suzanne, John, Mark D and Kathy D, Mark B, and the therapist. So, there is agreement as to a meeting taking place and agreement as to who was there.

Here is the link with Suzanne's take on that meeting.

http://forum.gcmwarning.com/people-and-places-of-gc/pastor-mark-darling-pastor-that-abused-me/msg14372/#msg14372

Biblically, according to Suzanne's testimony, Matthew 18 has been followed. Step one didn't work. On to step two.

Also, according to her testimony, there was an agreed upon therapy plan that involved:
1) Mark D stepping down for a period of time, and
2) Mark D getting counseling

Now, things get tricky.

The van Dycks went to Germany and while there learned that the therapy plan that had been agreed upon didn't happen because Mark D. felt it unnecessary. At this point, they made a decision to leave GCC/ECC and returned home.

My question to those posting who think it was a mistake to use social media is: Just how would a person in a GCC church go about following Matthew 18 and "telling the church". There is no meaningful membership. There are no congregational meetings.

Should a person just show up on a Sunday, rush the stage, and tell people their story?

When step 2 of Matthew 18 is followed and a resolution is agreed upon by all, but then the agreed upon steps are not implemented, what can a person do? They have already notified the pastors. The pastors didn't implement the plan that was agreed upon to bring resolution.

This is the problem when there is no meaningful participation of a congregation. When all decisions are made by the pastors in executive session, and there is no accountability, anything can happen.

Clearly, there are a lot of questions here. Clearly, an investigation that is led by an attorney who is consulting the ECC board as to how to proceed ("any thoughts on a reply") is not an "independent" investigation. An independent investigator, would not be asking one of the parties involved for advice on how to proceed.

There needs to be an independent investigation and transparency of results.

Some here have expressed that they don't want the results made public because it will make Suzanne look bad when she is proven wrong. First of all, she said she is fine with the results being made public. Secondly, she should look bad and be publicly called out if she is making all this up, posing as other victims and making up stories, and sneaking onto her husband's timeline and posting as him on Facebook!

Likewise, if Mark did this, he should be called out publicly and there should be consequences.

But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning.

Perhaps for the run of the mill member, it would be very hard to "take it to the church" in a situation like this, but John and Suzanne were not ordinary members. They were beloved and trusted leaders who had the backing of all the Evergreen locations, the ECC leadership team, and GCM. Were they not in a position to "take it to the church" just because they were overseas? I find that hard to believe. My aunt and uncle were recruited to take the place of John and Suzanne after they left, and they had no problems communicating with us. I, for one, have a hard time believing they are more empowered now than they were then "to take it to the church."

[IloveJesusHowBoutYou]

I am already up to 4 hrs and 34 minutes being logged into this forum- more than I ever thought I would achieve.

Linda, I am curious on where you are at with TIME LOGGED on this forum over the last 10 years.  You are committed to this cause, I'll give you that.

[G_Prince]

Linda if you could also tell us what kind of ICE TEA U PREFER, FAVORITE HOLIDAY, and WHAT YOUR DOG ATE FOR LUNCH, that would be super edifying. thnx.

[Linda]

Gold Peak Sweet. Christmas. I don't have a dog. #yourewelcome

[Digital Lynch Mob]

Gold Peak Sweet. Christmas. I don't have a dog. #yourewelcome

...and 70 days.

[Linda]

Perhaps for the run of the mill member, it would be very hard to "take it to the church" in a situation like this, but John and Suzanne were not ordinary members. They were beloved and trusted leaders who had the backing of all the Evergreen locations, the ECC leadership team, and GCM. Were they not in a position to "take it to the church" just because they were overseas? I find that hard to believe. My aunt and uncle were recruited to take the place of John and Suzanne after they left, and they had no problems communicating with us. I, for one, have a hard time believing they are more empowered now than they were then "to take it to the church."

I guess I disagree with your take on this.

Once they returned from Berlin, they had no voice whatsoever.

In fact, there was a meeting that I attended in which we were actually told not to contact the van Dycks and ask them why they left.

In addition, we were told not to ask any questions about them of relatives who still attended ECC.

I guess they could have rushed the stage at that meeting...had they known that meeting about them was taking place.

Again, there are many unanswered questions.

If there is nothing to hide, why will ECC not agree to transparent results of an independent investigation? It is a curiosity.