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.

[G_Prince]

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

Thank you for your honesty 

[Wrestling]

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

...and 70 days.

Sitting here, watching this all unfold. I understand how it must be frustrating to see people who left years ago saying bad things about your church. But if you profess Christ, doesn't He beg you to ask, "What hurt you so badly you post here so often? I may disagree, but please let me seek to understand you better. Why are you saying these terrible things?" And my guess is their answers won't be simple or quick. And it will take time to peel back the layers. But don't stop. Jesus doesn't stop pursuing us in love. If you want to engage in this, don't stop until you seek to understand the pain that spurred the creation of this corner of the internet. And you could argue that it goes both ways. But this is their corner of the internet. Try to understand why it's here, please.

[omelianchuk]

Linda, they didn't have to come back from Berlin in order to raise the issue. Under your hypothesis, they already raised it twice and could have raised it again before they left.

Outathere, what is "ironic" about me not asking for that opportunity? What I am doing is evaluating Linda's hypothesis that the van Dyke's were denied an opportunity to apply Matthew 18-style confrontation. As for a forum where both sides can be heard, I am all for it. Indeed, I am participating in one as far I can on this forum, so the irony seems to be lost you, if anyone.

[Linda]

From what she stated on this forum, they didn’t realize that the planned therapy wasn’t going to take place when they left. They learned of it after they arrived in Germany and it precipitated their departure.

How exactly would they have presented their case in front of the entire congregation from Germany in anything other than a 1 sided way? Why would they have to do it from Germany? Why couldn’t they do it here is my point. And just how would they go about orchestrating a face to face meeting with the congregation at an ECC church where they stated their case?

[Digital Lynch Mob]

If they had no voice, it was because they didn't want a voice. When they came back from Germany they refused to meet with the leadership team in the church. It is common for missionaries coming home from overseas to struggle with reintegration. To help the VDs, evergreen brought in Mission Training International to help with this process: https://www.mti.org/

The VD essentially left 30 families in Germany when they came home and yet would not meet to discuss a go-forward strategy or help plan for the future. It was MTI who introduced the separation agreement that went along with an offer of severance for John. But he wouldn't play ball. To say that the offer of a severance package was an attempted bride to silence Suzanne is patently false and one of the biggest (but certainly not the only) demonstrable falsehoods in her story.

[omelianchuk]

From what she stated on this forum, they didn’t realize that the planned therapy wasn’t going to take place when they left. They learned of it after they arrived in Germany and it precipitated their departure.

How exactly would they have presented their case in front of the entire congregation from Germany in anything other than a 1 sided way? Why would they have to do it from Germany? Why couldn’t they do it here is my point. And just how would they go about orchestrating a face to face meeting with the congregation at an ECC church where they stated their case?

Matthew 18:17: "If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church." Imagine this scenario. The van Dyke's hear that the plan they agreed to with the elders will not be followed. They arrive in Germany and become convinced that they have the right to tell the church of the problem. Nothing in the text says that they have to do it face-to-face or in an inclusive way. They have access to the email list of their supporters and the members of Evergreen-Plymouth, GCM leadership (Kern is still in the picture) and perhaps everyone in the system. They compose an email detailing the problem in an email and send it.

Is that too far fetched? Perhaps we will disagree on how a "tell it to the church" event is supposed to happen (you seem to assume it has to be face-to-face with the accused sitting there able to verbally respond -- why?), though we might agree that doing this would not be a prudent thing to do when one is beginning a new church plant. Fair enough. But as far as I can tell, this sort of opportunity was not denied to them.

[MicahJoelDarling]

From what she stated on this forum, they didn’t realize that the planned therapy wasn’t going to take place when they left. They learned of it after they arrived in Germany and it precipitated their departure.

How exactly would they have presented their case in front of the entire congregation from Germany in anything other than a 1 sided way? Why would they have to do it from Germany? Why couldn’t they do it here is my point. And just how would they go about orchestrating a face to face meeting with the congregation at an ECC church where they stated their case?

Linda,

You seem to be under the impression that a "therapy plan" for my dad is a fact. That is not the case. There was never a therapy plan, so the argument that the reason the van Dyck's left was because my dad didn't step down from ministry and undergo a therapy plan is baseless. And there was no sexual abuse brought up in that meeting, or in John/Suzanne's letter (which, I'll add here as this seems to be a misunderstanding, half of the letter was from John and half was from Suzanne).

Other than the fact that it didn't exist, there are a couple flaws I see in the concept of the therapy plan agreement and the van Dycks disappointment in finding out that it wasn't followed leading them to leave Berlin:

1. Suzanne claimed that part of the agreement was that my dad would not only undergo therapy, but would also step down from Pastoring for a time. It seems incredibly hard to believe that in the 1-2 years (I'm foggy on how long they were there) the van Dyck's were in Berlin and still maintained contact with ECC that they wouldn't have picked up on my dad not taking a leave of absence. Wouldn't that have been the first thing they noticed?

2. If Suzanne had actually brought up sexual abuse in that meeting in 2001, why would they have ever accepted an agreement in the first place that my dad could simply step down from pastoring for a time and undergo therapy, with the opportunity for him to go back to pastoring soon after? I can't understand why anyone would agree to this at all. If a pastor sexually abuses someone, all he has to do is take a leave of absence for a few months, undergo therapy, and that suddenly makes him fit to go back to being a pastor? I don't think it does. But I guess that is just my opinion.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

I think this was addressed to you Linda. Perhaps you missed it.

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.

[G_Prince]

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

I think it's become clear that they have no idea what this actually means. Somehow an investigation by their lawyer = fair and balanced. And they act like this is some major concession, like they are somehow doing Suzanne a favor. After seeing their arrogant, entitled, and self-righteous troll campaign in action, I completely understand why Suzanne has cut off all communication with them.

[Digital Lynch Mob]

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

I think it's become clear that they have no idea what this actually means. Somehow an investigation by their lawyer = fair and balanced. And they act like this is some major concession, like they are somehow doing Suzanne a favor. After seeing their arrogant, entitled, and self-righteous troll campaign in action, I completely understand why Suzanne has cut off all communication with them.

Where'd you get your law degree?

[HughHoney]

Guys, the fake moon landings haven’t even been attempted since Jim McCobbler left 3 decades ago!

[omelianchuk]

Guys, the fake moon landings haven’t even been attempted since Jim McCobbler left 3 decades ago!

Didn't we have footage of that before 1988?  

[GodisFaithful]

Not to digress from Moon Landings or anything but...

This is not a response to anyone. 

Just wanted to state that Victim C and husband said that they sent the leadership at Evergreen a letter strongly urging them to deal with Mark Darling's issues.  They did not get a response back that anything was done.  Nada.  That letter might have been kept. 

Not if Victim A is fake, which I think is about as far out as the moon.  About a one or two chance in a hundred that Scout is sitting around making up victim stories.  How ludicrous.  Now THAT is a real conspiracy story if there was one.  Victim A, C, and Scout sound very different. 

I was around during those years and I think it is very, very likely that I know Victim A.  I think they are all real flesh and blood people and I will support them until it is investigated as a fraud.  I was around during those years.

[GodisFaithful]

I meant Victim A and husband sent a letter.

[DarthVader]

My understanding is Victim C sent information to the ECC investigator and did not do so anonymously.  My only source for that is Suzanne's FB post a few days ago stating such, but that would be a lie with a very shortly lifespan given I'm guessing anyone on the board (e.g., Lynn Newman) could easily call the investigator and ask "has anyone else come forward, and did they provide their name/contact info" within hours or minutes of reading or being told about the FB post.  People on this site having been firing off some not so nice comments about "supposed victim A" and "victim C"..but if Victim C has complied with the ECC process and did so non-anonymously TO THE INVESTIGATOR, I think all should shut their pie-holes on Victim C and wait for her veracity to be evaluated by the investigator given she came forward in the forum and manner the church asked her to.

[iamnotafraid]

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

I think it's become clear that they have no idea what this actually means. Somehow an investigation by their lawyer = fair and balanced. And they act like this is some major concession, like they are somehow doing Suzanne a favor. After seeing their arrogant, entitled, and self-righteous troll campaign in action, I completely understand why Suzanne has cut off all communication with them.

Maybe Suzanne cut ties with Evergreen because she has some of her own sin issues she's hiding behind.  I smell a rat, just saying.  You can search by peoples names for their own criminal records.  No one thought to do that?

[Shamednomore]

Iamnotafraid and Gretchengail sound alike; is it just me?  You can keep dodging the issue of a transparent investigation.  But people who have nothing to hide would be willing to allow transparency.  Suzanne isn't afraid.  Why are you?

[wisemind]

Many of the Evergreen supporters who have recently posted have their own stories of being abused. I find it curious that they are so unwilling to give any acknowledgement of support to Suzanne and the other victims when they have suffered the same type of trauma and know what it feels like to be abused. They seem so sure that Mark Darling is innocent and above reproach. How would they feel if  they were portrayed as lying, evil, and were treated with disgust for telling their story. I understand the Darling family is shellshocked by these allegations and wants to support their father. That makes sense to me and I truly feel sorry for the suffering they are enduring. I just can't give Mark Darling the benefit of the doubt here. There are several women who have now told the story of their abuse. They have specific details and sound credible. The stories are similar. The husband of one victim confronted Mark telling him to stay away from his wife. I'm sure Mark would have been careful about not letting others know about the time spent with these women, especially his own family. It doesn't surprise me that he left no evidence.  I would think that his time was not monitored by anyone and he could arrange his schedule to meet with these women without anyone suspecting anything. If his wife suspected or knew of this behavior what could she do about it? Who could she go to for support I wonder? The other pastors clearly have Mark's back. Divorce really is not an option in GCC. Women are submissive to their husbands, especially the pastor's wives. I have to believe Suzanne and the other victims are telling the truth. What do they gain by making this up?

[jeromydaviddarling]

Friend, you've ONLY heard anything from Suzanne. You are taking the word of a woman you've NEVER met, posting ONLY on social media, when 5 eyewitnesses to Mark's life (his children and his oldest son's wife) have provided eye witness accounts of his life and stated unequivocally that NOTHING Suzanne has said is true. NO husband ever confronted my father (though it's interesting that when Suzanne was pressed on her own husbands continued silence she would finally finish Victim A's story by adding a nice touch with the classic "Stay away from my wife!" line). You can't "believe" people you've never met, who's names you don't know. You can't even believe something you read on the internet by someone you don't know, purportedly telling you things OTHER people told them. Also, THERE WAS NO RAPE OR SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN ANY OF THESE STORIES. Only "conversations" that were uncomfortable. Other very BRAVE women (including my wife) have written their RAPE stories on here and backed my father 100% as a safe, wonderful man. ARE YOU ACTUALLY CONFLATING UNCOMFORTABLE SEXUAL CONVERSATIONS WITH RAPE? If so, you definitely could use some education on the difference between rape by women who have come out with their real names, and nameless "Victim X" stories that all sound exactly identical, than you have to assume that my father was somehow able to carry on all these long talk/late night/long car/in the park relationships with what - 7 women?? And my mom was too stupid to notice - or allowed all of this?

[GodisFaithful]

I have met Scout.  Last I remember she did not have horns on her head and a pitchfork in her hand.  From my memory she was beautiful.  I am sure it is true she has a few flaws.  I have a few flaws, too.  Most of us do.  It does not mean she was not sexually exploited.  Has it ever dawned on you that some on this forum might know her a little more than you do?

I get it that this is a terribly painful time for you and your family.