Dave Bruskas and Mark Driscoll to Mars Hill Church Elders in May 2012: We Really Need Your Help

The following post by Dave Bruskas and Mark Driscoll was made to Mars Hill Church’s internal website The City and also sent via email to staff and elders on May 25, 2012. This memo contrasts with the reality of compensation for the executive elders, apparently unknown to the lead pastors and members at the time.

This memo should be read along with the memo Sutton Turner sent to Mark Driscoll and Dave Bruskas in March of 2012 where Turner said the church was in serious financial trouble due to poor planning and lack of financial transparency. Also recall that the church paid ResultSource over $200,000 in late 2011 and early 2012 to get Mark Driscoll’s book Real Marriage on the New York Times best-seller list. Another relevant fact is that the church solicited $6.4 million from the congregation at the end of 2011 in order to help launch four new church plants in January 2012, the same month that Real Marriage was released. The executive elders told the people that in addition to launching the churches, Mars Hill planned to use that money to develop an animated children’s video series. Like the Jesus Festival, the series was never animated.
BruskasmemoMay2012
The full text of the memo is reproduced below.

We Really Need Your Help
From Pastor David Bruskas:
From Pastor Dave:

As the final days of putting together a budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1 are here, some Lead Pastors are wrestling with the reality of letting a few good people go at the local church level. And some of you have had recent conversations with your Lead Pastor regarding upcoming transitions that have been painful. I understand firsthand how hard it is to let a productive staff member go whom your church loves. I also know how hard it is for the people who have been served well to let staff go without a fight. So that makes Lead Pastors twice as vulnerable. They must face the disappointment of the departing staff member and the disappointment of the church. And much like I would expect any good leader to do, many Lead Pastors are fighting hard to keep staff and avoid cuts creatively and boldly. But we need to let go of that fight at this point. Here are a couple of reasons why.

First, we have, in reality, a single budget for all of our 14 churches. So this means for every cent in exceptions that once church receives above the $10 per adult compensation and ministry operation allotment, another church loses the same amount. So the only way for one church to win is for another church to lose. Second, the cost numbers per adult that Pastor Sutton and the Finance Team have given for targets aren’t arbitrary nor merely guidelines. They are hard targets that have been carefully researched and must be met. And if we don’t live within our means, we won’t just face the loss of future expansion opportunities, we will have to scale back our current ministry services significantly. And in the most dire circumstances, shut down a few of our churches. As of today, we are paying extra fees in financing the costs of existing buildings because of our unattractive financial condition to potential lenders. This must change for us even to be good stewards of what we already have.

A couple of final thoughts. First, we know this isn’t your fault, but the result of past decisions and practices. And while we will provide you a new and helpful global narrative soon to communicate this really tough news to our members, to be critical of the past means that we have to say things publicly that might hurt good leaders with great intentions who served Mars Hill well. Some of whom are still faithfully serving along side us today. And that to us seems like a losing proposition. We also know that this process has had some starts and stops along with some conflicting information. Please forgive us for that. We are continually receiving new financial information that has caused some hiccups along the way.

Second, these are decisions the Executive Elders are making in unity. We have spent countless hours discussing together both the state of our finances and our present staffing model through face to face meetings, emails, texts and phone calls. We have worked through each of your staff rosters in an attitude of prayer thinking through every angle we could imagine to keep as many people as possible. We grieve the fact that this cut is deep and results in letting go of some very good people who are performing well and helping the church. We have done the same thing with our central team reducing our costs 40%. It is super painful and we are very sympathetic towards you, your team and your church.

And more than anything, we hurt for those who have lost jobs. We would request that you abide by our spending targets per person. Please respect these decisions by not coming to us individually in the hope that they may be changed. Pastor Sutton and I are happy to clarify anything that is confusing. But we can’t devote any more time to hearing appeals.

We love you all very much and appreciate your devotion to Jesus and His church in this tough season. We do feel loved and supported by you and hope you feel the same from your

Executive Elders.

From Pastor Mark:

These are tough seasons. Personally we love our staff.

Pastorally we are concerned for our staff. Practically we grieve for our staff. Professionally we don’t have a choice but to reduce our staff. We simply have to live within our means. If we reduce staff now we can provide lead time for people to find an option while receiving severance. Had we not done this we would have had to reduce staff without severance this summer. We know this is hard but it is better than the alternative. The various leaders making these decisions across four states have prayed and labored over these tough calls. Your Exec Elders have cut first and deepest. Central is reduced 40% and working double time. We are vacating our offices reducing our staff and in contact nearly every hour every day pulling together and seeking Jesus’ wisdom. Your Executive Pastor Sutton is up at 4am everyday praying for our church. Now is a time for everyone to pray and love a lot. Lastly, without being improper we’ve frankly been through tougher times and deeper cuts before. After 15 years i can say this is not the worst storm we’ve weathered. We will get through it together by Gods grace. Trust me on this fact.

This memo illustrates why transparency is needed now. Dave Bruskas is the remaining executive and presumably is the one responsible for the current decision not to release information on the Global Fund, severance packages and the Driscoll investigation report. In 2012, the executive elders had gotten raises while telling the staff that they had cut “first and deepest.”

What were the cuts? In Driscoll’s case, he cut his salary for several months from $503,077 to $480,769. While some people were losing their jobs, Driscoll cut his half million dollar salary by 4.4% on an annualized basis. Then, less than three months later, Sutton Turner recommended that the church raise Driscoll’s pay by nearly $150,000. Clearly, the first cut was not the deepest.

Turnerrecom650August2012

Year after year, Mars Hill members have been asked to give sacrificially above and beyond tithes to the Global Fund and various year-end financial drives (Turner called them “Hail Mary” efforts) with no knowledge of the financial moves being made by leadership. As the church winds down, secrecy still appears to be the norm at the church with members being asked to give until the end while the leaders have decided not to disclose the Driscoll investigation, a full accounting of the Global Fund, or the commitment of the church to executive severances.

The current remaining elders have an opportunity to step up and walk in the light as they were asked to do by the nine former pastors who took a stand for disclosure and transparency. Time is slipping away and it remains to be seen what that legacy will be.

Should Historians Read Providence in Historical Events?

In a word, no.
Although I am sure about what I think, providence is an issue of importance to religious historians. To explore the issue, Justin Taylor at the Gospel Coalition published a helpful post yesterday on the subject which teases out some of the issues and players.
He examines the views of six historians which believe Christian historians should describe God’s hand in human events and those who don’t.
If you enjoy the history posts here, you will want to read the entire post.
For what it’s worth, I am in the Carl Trueman-John Fea camp.
Today, Taylor follows up with more from David Bebbington and others on how the Christian historian should write for a secular audience.  Since I don’t believe the Christian historian is omniscient and can tell what God is doing, I don’t think the writing is much different when providing an accurate historical narrative.
I really appreciate this series because it brings attention to some of the issues at stake with David Barton’s fractured history. Barton writes as if he understands the providence of God and claims that historical facts validate his view. However, to get to his position, he takes history hostage and tortures it until the hostage supports his religious view of the events.  Having a providential mindset in advance of the facts can easily set up the historian to find what he wants to find, or more accurately, what he believes he needs to find in order for his religion to seem true to his audience. In my belief system, God does not need that kind of help from me.
 
 

Pop Quiz: When You Buy a Goat from World Vision, Who Gets the Goat? UPDATED

Pop quiz, gentle readers.
When you donate money to buy a goat from the World Vision catalog, who gets that goat?
Answer in the comments section; base your answer on the screen capture of this online page from the World Vision website.
If you provide any more information about this appeal, please provide your source.
wvwebsitegoats
 
More to come this afternoon…
UPDATE:
I asked World Vision for an answer to this question. Amy Parodi, spokeswoman for the organization, told me:

When people purchase a goat from the World Vision gift catalog, their donation goes into a pool of money designated to purchase livestock and related agricultural projects, including goats.  Those animals are then distributed to families participating in World Vision animal husbandry programs in a variety of countries around the world.
We use the slightly broader categories because it’s nearly impossible to encourage the exact number of donations to match the exact need for specific animals in our programs, but it’s still critical that we honor our donors’ intentions with their gifts.
The “related agricultural projects” I mentioned above are efforts that help families care for the animals they’ve been given.  Providing watering sources, farming assistance, famine relief and other essentials help families truly benefit from their livestock.
If people want to give to a general fund, the World Vision catalog has an item called “Where Most Needed.”  These donations are placed into programs – in any country and within any sector of World Vision’s work – that are partially funded and need more resources to be fully operational.

I appreciate this answer. The one on the website is less clear than this.

We promise to honor your generosity and use your donation in the most effective way possible. The needs shown in this catalog reflect World Vision projects at the time of writing and the suggested donation amounts are based on periodic surveys of the countries we serve. Each item is representative of the gift category in which it appears and donations will be used to provide assistance where it is needed most within that category or to address a similar need.

The multiplying effect from grants and donated goods may change throughout the year on identical or similar offers due to variations in the start and end dates of donor grants and our programs.

Givewell.org calls an approach like this a donor illusion. Although I might not go that far, I can understand how some could be disillusioned when they thought they were buying an animal for a family. Many people I have spoken with believe that is what the promotion promises and that the fine print should be a bigger part of the promotion.
I am not saying the money goes into questionable places. I believe it is necessary to support the efforts with education and training. I do wonder how many animals are requested versus how many are purchased. And I wonder how much the Christmas push to purchase an animal raises as compared to how much is spent to purchase animals.  However, I do know that some people get animals and that much of the money does go into assisting needy people.
So if you thought you were buying an animal for a needy child/family, now you know some of the rest of the story.
Additional information:
You can also give nativity animals according to the print catalog. While I understand the explanation given by Ms. Parodi, I wonder if it is pushing it to ask, “What better way to celebrate the birth of Christ than to share those same animals so that families can prosper?”
NativityanimalsWV

The David Barton Cover Up: More on Gregg Frazer’s Critique of David Barton’s America’s Godly Heritage

On Monday, I wrote about a time in 2012 when David Barton was confronted by evangelical historians. I linked to a devastating critique of Barton’s America’s Godly Heritage by Gregg Frazer, professor of history at The Master’s College.  Much of the critique is helpful even if one has not seen Barton’s DVD because Frazer includes enough of the context to make the critiques clear. However, there is one section which might not be as clear as the others. To help readers use the critique well, I want to provide some additional context.

Specifically, I refer to this section of Frazer’s critique:

Barton’s claims about the percentage of quotes directly from the Bible or based on the Bible or from “men who used the Bible to write their conclusions” are gross misrepresentations that are too confusing and complex to explain briefly here. A few comments will have to suffice. First, his percentages are blown out of proportion. He notes that a study found the Bible to have the highest percentage of citations (34%) and he claims that another 60% came from “men who used the Bible to write their conclusions”; consequently, he claims that “94% of the quotes of the Founders were based on the Bible.” First, neither the 60% number nor the 94% number come from the study – Barton made those up. Second, the study is careful to note that “reprinted sermons accounted for almost three-fourths of the biblical citations, making this nonsermon source of biblical citations roughly as important as the Classical or Common Law categories [10%].” Most importantly, while Barton appeals to this study during his discussion of the framing of the Constitution, the study says that during the debate on the U.S. Constitution, “the Bible’s prominence disappears” and “(t)he debate surrounding the adoption of the Constitution was fought out mainly in the context of Montesquieu, Blackstone, the English Whigs, and major writers of the Enlightenment.” Even at that, the percentages are misleading in and of themselves, as misapplication and misinterpretations of passages (abuse of the Bible) are counted the same as proper use. Satan quotes the Bible (e.g. Luke 3:10-11) too, but that does not indicate any righteousness or interest in promoting Christianity on his part.

The study in question was conducted by Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman, both then at the University of Houston. Frazer is correct in his criticisms but there is more that can be said about Barton’s misuse of the study. For that additional information, please see my prior post on how the Institute on the Constitution mimics Barton’s errors and then this post by Jim Allison and Tom Peters.

This is a case where Barton cites the study improperly, and then fails to cite all of the relevant sections of the study. Barton’s main argument is that the founders used the Bible as a foundation for our form of government. However, Lutz and Hyneman demonstrate that the Federalist defenders of the Constitution did not refer to the Bible once in their writings.  On page 194 of the study, Lutz charts the analysis of the citations in the Federalist and Antifederalist papers.

LutzHyneman

Note that the Bible was not cited at all by the Federalists. It was those who opposed various aspects of the Constitution, the Antifederalists, who cited the Bible.  While Lutz and Hyneman are fair in their research, Barton spins and omits relevant information to twist their argument beyond recognition.

The title of this post begins by calling attention to what I call “the David Barton cover up.” Religious right leaders know about the many critiques from Christian academics but those leaders choose to ignore them. David Barton’s fractured history is apparently too important to challenge. Major organizations (e.g., Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, Liberty University, Gateway Church) and individuals (e.g., David Lane, Glenn Beck, Sen. Ted Cruz) are aware of the findings of numerous conservative Christian historians. However, the work of these scholars does not matter. Countless state and federal legislators have been led astray which has consequences for the state of our political process.

These organizations and leaders are responsible as are Christian media sources who fail to ask these leaders hard questions; it remains to be seen if they will ever do the right thing.

 

Mars Hill Bellevue Elders Will Remain in Place for Six Months Past Soma Transition

Yesterday, we heard from Jeff Vanderstelt about his move to Bellevue. Today we hear from Jason Skelton, pastor at Bellevue (now being referred to as “Eastside church”). Probably, the most interesting aspect of the communication is that the elders are committed to stay in place for six months. Vanderstelt said in his letter that the elders were willing to resign, but apparently that is not how it will happen. Somehow they will be assessed but the goal is to affirm each other (either oddly worded or an odd process of assessment).

From Pastor Jason Skelton:
Eastside Family,
Last month, we shared a schedule of Interest Meetings for the new Eastside church. The purpose of these meetings is to create a focused time to talk through vision, planning, and execution in specific ministry areas. We need your feedback and wisdom to set up God-honoring and people-loving ministries at our new church. In our last meeting, we had the opportunity to share with you information regarding location, describe what financial transparency will look like in the future, and share a draft of our bylaws for the new church. We had over 100 people attend and are grateful for your support.
In our Interest Meeting this Sunday, December 7th, we’ll be focusing on community groups and discipleship. Jeff Vanderstelt, whom we have presented as a candidate for our new Lead Teaching Pastor, will be with us talking through his vision for community and discipleship. If you’re interested in what community groups will look like, or have questions and feedback on how we can improve our discipleship going forward, please join us this Sunday at 12:30p. Jeff will also be preaching at all of our services on December 7th (8:30a, 10:30a, and 4:00p).
If you’re more interested in other aspects of ministry, we will also have Interest Meetings upcoming for the following:
December 9, 5-8p – Potluck dinner at the Sammamish church building (anyone is welcome)
Thursday December 11, 11:45am – 1:00pm – Lunch in the Redmond area (anyone is welcome, more details coming soon)
December 14, 12:30p – Interest Meetings, on the topic of Sunday Volunteer Teams and service opportunities
December 21, 12:30p – Interest Meetings, on the topic of Ministries (Counseling, Kids, Students, etc.)
Lastly, we would also encourage you to read through Jeff’s recent post regarding the prayerful consideration of his move to serve at this new Eastside church. We had the opportunity to share this information at our Interest Meeting last Sunday but felt that it was important to also present it publicly, from Jeff. We hope to have clarity on this decision by December 14th, making an announcement no later than December 21st.
We present Jeff to serve as one of your elders because we believe that he can lead us as we all follow Jesus together to become a healthy church. We are praying for great unity about this decision across the church family, and that with one voice we would be able to affirm Jeff into the new role this month. Along with Jeff the elders from Bellevue and Sammamish will partner in ministry and submit to a new assessment of our qualifications for eldership. We have committed that we will serve together over the next six months, with the goal that we would all be able to affirm one another’s qualification and calling to the role of elder in the new church moving forward. That process will include opportunities for the congregation to provide feedback as we serve and worship together.
We are here because we love you, and because we want to be here. There is much joy in serving God’s people, and to serve you here has proven this to be abundantly true.
In Christ,
Pastor Jason

Via email, I am hearing from Bellevue members who are considering a move but are hoping that the church will release information regarding the Global Fund and the overall financial picture. Former members who might consider a move back to Bellevue if the current elders step down will probably be disappointed with this note, after being somewhat encouraged yesterday.