Month: December 2014

Mars Hill Military Mission and Mars Hill Global: When Two Became One

When the two became one account, that is.
As Mars Hill Church winds down, I am looking back through my notes and materials to see what other information might be relevant to the big picture. One part of the Mars Hill story that I haven’t spent much time looking at is the Mars Hill Military Mission. I did some research on it months ago but didn’t write about it. However, writing about Global earlier today reminded me of a connection between Mars Hill Global and the Military Mission. The Military Mission was folded into Mars Hill Global in early 2012. Up to that time, people were giving specifically so Mars Hill books and resources could be shipped to service members. Mark Driscoll A Mars Hill staffer* discussed the combination of the Military Mission into what was called “Global Ministries” in a now deleted update on the Mars Hill website.
However, the amazing Wenatchee the Hatchet has a snippet of that deleted update where Mark Driscoll a Mars Hill staffer* talks about the combination of the Military Mission with Global ministries. Here it is:

… Because of the enormous growth of this ministry, we are needing to make some changes that will allow us to keep up with the great number of orders that are flowing in. The Military Mission will now become part of our new Global Ministries department. Because distribution is a large part of what Mars Hill Military Mission does, this strategic move will allow us to send out more resources at a quicker, less expensive, and more efficient rate. We have also combined Global Ministries and Military Mission’s financial contributions to one account. This will not only simplify our accounting processes but it will enable our ministries to have more of a global impact. Those of you who are currently giving specifically to the Military Mission might ask “Will my donations still be funding the Military Mission?” Our answer would be, “Yes—and then some.”

The date on this update is April 14, 2012. The church revealed that donors at one time gave specifically to the Military Mission. It was then disclosed that the donations would go to the new department with a “global impact.” Would the donations to the reconfigured Global Fund fund military missions? “Yes–and then some,” the update said. However, the Military Mission eventually went away in favor of an emphasis on branding Mars Hill Global as international missions work.
While this action was taken before Mars Hill Church became accredited by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, the decision by the church to mix donations designation for military and missions use may not have been proper or in keeping with ECFA guidelines. Donor intent is supposed to guide non-profit spending. If donations were made to provide resources to the military but were then combined into a fund that the church is now saying went mostly to funding U.S. expansion of video locations, then those donations may not have been spent as intended.
Another take away from the Mars Hill update is that the Global ministries had its own account. Earlier today, I presented evidence which seems to confirm that. However, the official position of the church is that the Global Fund wasn’t considered a fund beginning in 2012. Clearly, Driscoll the staffer* said the two mission activities would be combined to one account.
Demise of the Military Mission
The Military Mission was the subject of some negative attention from Sutton Turner in his March 2012 middle of the night memo to Driscoll and Dave Bruskas were he told his fellow executive elders that the church was in a “big mess.” In a long list of financially unsustainable activities, Turner said:

16. Having ministries like Film and Theology and Military Missions is not sustainable.

Eventually, as the Mars Hill update said, the Military mission was folded into Global.
In a Spring 2012 memo about combining the Military Mission into the Global brand, the value of the military work was questioned:
militarymissionROIproblem
Without the photos and stories, apparently the return on investment (ROI) just wasn’t enough for Mars Hill leaders. In time, they agreed with Turner that the Military Mission was not sustainable. The focus on the military waned once Mars Hill Global went into full swing.
As it turned out making a church into a business was not sustainable.
 
*The post originally said that Mark Driscoll authored the update about the Military Mission. However, Wenatchee the Hatchet informed me that a Mars Hill staffer authored the post. At the request of the staffer, the name is being withheld. However, the information was on the Mars Hill website as the position of the church.
 
 
 
 

Mark Driscoll on Mars Hill Global: The Global Mission Effort of Jesus Christ

Recently a couple of commenters have questioned whether or not communications from Mars Hill Church left the impression that Mars Hill Global was the international missions ministry arm of Mars Hill Church.  The following video was made by Mark Driscoll to describe the changing brand of Mars Hill Global. Sutton Turner hoped to appeal to both Mars Hill members and people outside the church by recasting Mars Hill Global as the way the church participated in the world wide mission. Rather than actually put the millions raised into missions, however, the plan was to feature some projects and then funnel the preponderance of the funds into Mars Hill Church’s general fund.
This video is one of the Mars Hill Global videos that was removed from YouTube by the church. When I put clips of the removed video back on You Tube, the church challenged the Fair Use of the videos but backed down when I challenged their claim.

The messaging of Mars Hill Global after 2012 was ambiguous at times. However, Driscoll here and Sutton Turner  in a video that can still be seen on the Mars Hill website made the message very clear that international work was the primary focus of Mars Hill Global. Turner said with an Ethiopian church in the background:

Mars Hill Global is the arm of Mars Hill Church that makes disciples and plant churches all over the world.

After touting their translation work, Turner solicited money from both Mars Hill members and people outside the church.

So whether you’re a member of one of our Mars Hill Church locations in the United States or you’re one of 100,000 podcasters every single week, We encourage you to pray about giving above and beyond your tithe to Mars Hill Global.

Even though Turner later in 2014 tried to reframe Mars Hill Global into only people outside the church, the new message was at odds with what was proclaimed before sermons throughout 2013 and early 2014.
Donor intent is signaled by the choices that donors make when they give. Up until May 2014, donors had the ability to select the Global Fund or the Mars Hill general fund for their donations. See again this video demonstration:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/a4EFX3-RXyg[/youtube]
Global Fund
According to recent communications from Justin Dean, Mars Hill spokesman, the Global Fund wasn’t a fund. Even though it was labeled as a fund as distinct from the general fund and had its own accounting code, church leaders have crafted a story that considers the Global Fund a restricted fund before 2012 but not a restricted after 2012. However, they didn’t tell donors that the fund was not restricted in the minds of church leaders until I started writing about the Global Fund in 2014.
I have recently obtained some accounting information which demonstrates again that donors designated money to the Global Fund. This particular donor (name redacted) gave to both the general fund from a campus location and to the Global Fund (GLO).
GlobalGiving
“History” above refers to the location of information about that donation in a prior accounting software package used in early 2012. I have redacted many donations between February and October. The donations in October were made on behalf of U-District (10/21/12) and the Global Fund (10/23, 10/9).  Apparently those funds were designated for those accounts but it can’t be determined from this document if they were spent for those purposes.
Time is running out for current Mars Hill leaders and those involved with them (Soma leaders) to do the right thing and disclose the actual giving to missions. From what Mars Hill leaders have already said, we know that missions did not get funding commensurate with the amount of branding and attention Ethiopian and Indian pastors received in Mars Hill media solicitations throughout 2012 to 2014. Now as the church dissolves, shouldn’t those pastors get some of those funds? Even if they don’t get the money raised through the Global Fund, shouldn’t what is left upon dissolution (possibly in the neighborhood of $20 million) be divided 12 ways, with a portion for the Indian and Ethiopian pastors?
Former and current Mars Hill members and interested parties, can I get a witness?
While you’re thinking about it, please re-read the Global Fund memo which outlined the plan to use mission projects to raise money.
 
MarshillFAQGlobal

No Minister of the Gospel Shall Be Eligible to the Office of Governor, Lieutenant Governor or a Seat in the General Assembly

Does this title represent a sinister new proposal by the godless left to keep Christian ministers from political office?

Hardly. Rather, this is a section from the 1817 Constitution of the State of Mississippi. Apparently, the framers of that Constitution believed that the care of souls could be distracted by the care of the government. After posting Jake MacAulay’s article on the issue of belief in God as a requirement to hold office, I checked out the original Mississippi Constitution. Section 6 contains the words quoted by MacAulay. However, the very next section forbids Christian ministers from seeking public office.

Section 6. No person who denies the being of God, or of a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State.

Section 7. Ministers of the Gospel being by their profession, dedicated to God, and the care of souls, ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions. Therefore, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination whatever, shall be eligible to the office of Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, or to a seat in either branch of the General Assembly.

Jake MacAulay lauded Mississippi for including belief in God as a requirement for public service. Will he also laud Section 7 which disallowed ministers from public office? Which of these planks is the so-called “American view” of law and government?

The framers of the federal Constitution were wise to specifically prohibit religious tests. The American view is reflected in their work.  The Institute on the Constitution is an organization dedicated to misinforming the public and cannot be trusted.

Some Questions for Soma Church from Soma Members About the Mars Hill Bellevue Replant

In recent days, several members of Soma churches have written me with questions they have posed to either their local pastors or to the leaders at Soma Tacoma. The questions relate to the relationship between Soma and Mars Hill now and after the transition to independent churches. I don’t know the answers to these questions and have posed them to my contacts at Soma with no answer as yet. The members who wrote have not gotten answers either.
I am posting them here because I think if several people are asking, then many more would like to know. I also think some readers might know the answers and might then step forward either on the blog or via email. I have combined some similar questions into one category. Here they are:

1.  Mars Hill Global Fund: Do you believe Soma has an obligation to get clarity on where the money went, and making sure what’s left gets to the right people?
2.  Is Soma going to have any role in funding any Mars Hill severance pay?  Will tithes from local Soma churches have any part in fulfilling Bellevue’s obligations?
3.  Do you think MHC/Bellevue Church as part of Soma should have the existing leadership removed of their authority as elders and leaders?  (Jeff Vanderstelt said they’d step down, now not the case) Do you think these leaders, if they knew of abusive climate but did nothing, should be disqualified?
4.  What is you policy on shunning?  Is this practice condemned at Soma?
5.  Will former MHC leadership assume leadership positions in Soma Tacoma with national governance roles once Bellevue Church is brought into the Soma network?
6. If any of the former leaders at Bellevue are brought into the RICO lawsuit, will Soma help pay for their legal defense?
7. Has Soma checked in with Acts 29 for spiritual counsel? Has anyone from Soma discussed the move with former Mars Hill elders or Paul Tripp?
8. Will Soma benefit from the Mars Hill seed money?

 

Institute on the Constitution Rep Argues Against the Constitution on Religious Test Clause

Institute on the Constitution Director of Operations Jake MacAulay today argued against the Constitution on Matt Barber’s Barbwire website.
MacAulay noted that seven states still have requirements that office holders in those states believe in a god.

There are seven states including Maryland with language in their constitutions that prohibits people who do not believe in God from holding public office.

Besides Maryland, the other six states with language in their constitutions that prohibit people who do not believe in God from holding public office are Arkansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

Such bans were declared unconstitutional by Torcaso v. Watkins in 1961.

Torcaso v. Watkins
No. 373
Argued April 24, 1961
Decided June 19, 1961
367 U.S. 488
APPEAL FOM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND
Syllabus
Appellant was appointed by the Governor of Maryland to the office of Notary Public, but he was denied a commission because he would not declare his belief in God, as required by the Maryland Constitution. Claiming that this requirement violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, he sued in a state court to compel issuance of his commission, but relief was denied. The State Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the state constitutional provision is self-executing, without need for implementing legislation, and requires declaration of a belief in God as a qualification for office. Held: This Maryland test for public office cannot be enforced against appellant, because it unconstitutionally invades his freedom of belief and religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by the States. Pp. 367 U. S. 489-496.

A South Carolina case addressed that state’s religious test by specifically referring to Article VI of the Constitution:

Silverman v. Campbell, 326 S.C. 208, 486 S.E.2d 1 (1997):  In this case, the South Carolina Supreme Court held Article VI, section 2 (“No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution) and Article XVII, section 4 (“No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution) of the South Carolina Constitution violated the First Amendment and the Religious Test of the United States Constitution by barring persons who denied the existence of a “Supreme Being” from holding office.  At that time, only two states, North Carolina and South Carolina, required a religious test for public office. Full Case Materials

It is clear the framers did not intend for religion to be a test because the Constitution forbids such tests. From Article VI, paragraph three of the Constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

In light of the Constitution’s clear statement here, consider this absurd statement from MacAulay:

So this constitutional requirement that an office holder must believe in God is a logical and consistent protection against those who might drive our constitutional republic in a bad direction.

This isn’t about discrimination or bigotry.  It’s about ensuring that those holding office in America are committed to the true, lawful, American philosophy of government.

Apparently, the Constitution got it wrong, according to the Institute on the Constitution’s Director of Operations. In his argument in favor of a religious test, he seems oblivious to the fact that the Constitution forbids such a test. In essence, MacAulay argues that the federal Constitution is wrong and does not represent the “true, lawful, American philosophy of government.”

This and other clear problems are why no school child should be confused and misled by the IOTC’s teaching on the Constitution via their inaccurately named American Clubs. That Matt Barber, who works at the Liberty University law school, posted this mess is another reason why no student should attend Liberty University’s School of Law.