At one time, Mars Hill Global was a platform for people to give to Resurgence,Mars Hill Church and Acts 29 Network. However, by August 2012, the branding had changed as the materials below demonstrate. The means to give to all three was changed to The Connect Desk and Mars Hill Global became the ministry to provide for “church planters internationally.”
Currently, Mars Hill Church has declined to provide me with information about their use of Mars Hill Global donations for FY 2013 and the months up through the end of April. This period of time is relevant because Mars Hill changed the way they marketed Mars Hill Global early in FY 2013 (calendar year 2012). In August 2012, this notice was placed on the domain marshillglobal.com.
A current webpage (soon to be removed I suspect but I have a copy) on TheResurgence.com explains what happened.
The 2013 Annual Report reinforced this change by only reporting international mission accomplishments.
Up until May 2014, a donor could give to a Global Fund which was tied to the Mars Hill Global website, which was tied to numerous videos of efforts in Ethiopia and India. Only recently, after my reporting on this subject, have we learned that the Global Fund helped pay for the down payment and start up costs for Mars Hill Everett and other franchises.
Author: Warren Throckmorton
The Voice of the Voiceless (sic) Campaign: Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right
Subtitle: Conservatives Against Crazy Therapies #savethepillows (see video below).
Right wing website The College Fix misses the point in an article published last Friday (6/20).
The assumption on the part of Chris Doyle and author Claire Healey seems to be that incorrect information provided by college counseling or resource centers should lead to the addition of more incorrect information at those same centers. In other words, since LGBT centers say some things that might be inaccurate or can’t be proven, ex-gay supporters should be allowed to do the same thing.
This is not “right-minded” but rather wrong-headed.
Doyle can’t offer any evidence for his claims, and as his campaign shows, his group is hardly voiceless.
Conservatives should not react in a knee jerk fashion against what seems like viewpoint discrimination to simply offer what seems to be the opposite position (e.g., gay groups say gays can’t change, conservative groups then should support the notion that gays can change). What seems like the opposite position of the position you don’t like is not of necessity the correct one. In this case, it is true that research has not found a consensus around the causes of homosexuality. However, that does not mean that Doyle’s version of weak fathering and overbearing mothering is correct. In fact, that model doesn’t have support in research. There are many good empirical reasons to question that model for most gays. Doyle’s therapy approach is based on that causal model which, in addition to the absence of any empirical support, opens it up to skepticism.
Two wrongs don’t create a “right-minded” stance and is a loser as a conservative position.
Chris Doyle’s mentor Richard Cohen in action:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtGouVqsmsg[/youtube]
Sorry, can’t imagine a college promoting this anti-science brand of ex-gay therapy but that is what Doyle’s IHF is known for.
Candidates for Maryland County Council Get Blessing of League of the South's President
Institute on the Constitution’s Owner/Director Michael Peroutka and Senior Instructor David Whitney will face voters Tuesday in the Republican and Democratic primaries respectively for the chance to face each other in the election for Anne Arundel County Council. The Baltimore Sun profiled them on Saturday and shed some light on their relationship with the white separatist group League of the South.
Last June, Peroutka joined the board of the League of the South and Whitney is the chaplain of the MD/VA chapter of the League. When Peroutka joined the board, he told the League that he would dedicate the work of the Institute on the Constitution as well as his family’s resources to the League. When Peroutka’s name recently disappeared from the League board roster, I asked League president Michael Hill via Twitter why Peroutka was no longer a board member. I received no answer and so I have been curious about the change. With Peroutka moving into politics again, I thought perhaps they had decided to go separate ways toward their mutual goals. Now we read in the Baltimore Sun article that League president Michael Hill is pleased that Peroutka and Whitney are running for office. Although Hill’s group has endorsed Peroutka before for elective office (when Peroutka ran for president as the representative of the Constitution Party in 2004), the League often shies away from election politics. However, according to the Sun article:
Hill won’t say how many members the League of the South has but said that about half a dozen members are running for elective office this year. He praised Peroutka and Whitney for their leadership in running for office and publicly discussing their beliefs.
Hill has condemned modern America as corrupt so why would he be pleased that his members are running to be a part of the system? The Sun article provides information on that point.
The league advocates for Southern secession to create a new governance for Southern states, including Maryland. Hill said the group first must get candidates elected to local offices before formally pursuing secession.
There you go Marylanders. Elect League of the South members if you want to set the stage for Southern secession.
Hill complains about being called a neo-Confederate group. Perhaps if they didn’t wave the Confederate flag all over the place and lionize Confederate heroes and seek to turn the government back to the Confederate constitution (see the Grey Book), then they wouldn’t get the label. I call them white separatist because Hill’s group advocates solely for white Southerners.
Historian Thomas Kidd: On Slavery and George Whitefield
Thomas Kidd is professor of history at Baylor University and a prolific writer. In 2012, World Magazine published Kidd’s reporting on Thomas Nelson’s decision to remove David Barton’s book The Jefferson Lies from publication.
In October 2014, Yale University Press will publish Kidd’s book on George Whitefield. In his most recent newsletter, Kidd addresses the uncomfortable fact that many otherwise admirable figures in our history owned slaves. In the case of Whitefield, he not only owned slaves but worked to advance slavery. Kidd gave me permission to use this material from his Thursday newsletter:
The most challenging issue for a biographer of George Whitefield (as with Patrick Henry) is his identity as a slave owner. I admire Whitefield and Henry, as well as similar figures of their time such as Jonathan Edwards or George Washington, but their owning people as slaves remains an unavoidable moral problem.
How does one admire a historical figure who kept slaves? How does an author fully convey his disapproval of American slavery, while not condemning an individual altogether? I am not sure that I have gotten the balance exactly right, but we want to avoid two extremes.
One extreme might suggest that Whitefield was a great man of God, and that harping on his owning of slaves denigrates his memory as a Christian hero.
The other extreme might say that whatever Whitefield accomplished for God was fatally tainted by his owning slaves, so he is better forgotten or just used as a cautionary tale.
I think the better approach is to humbly acknowledge that we all have moral blind spots. We can justify all manner of habits and practices that, in three centuries’ retrospect, may seem appalling. But this does not excuse Whitefield’s complicity in what was a fundamentally immoral system, from the terrible wars and slave catching trade in Africa, to the horrible passage of the forced Atlantic voyage, to the dreadful working conditions for slaves, to the physical and sexual abuse that many slaves endured in the Americas.
Jonathan Edwards seems an easier case to forgive, as he only kept a few household slaves and just occasionally spoke in public about the rectitude of slave owning. Whitefield, by contrast, was arguably the key figure in having slavery introduced in the colony of Georgia, where it was originally banned. I was dismayed to find archival evidence that Whitefield may have even allowed slaves to work at the property of his Bethesda before Georgia made slave owning legal.
Although I personally lean a little more toward the “fatally tainted” extreme, I like the way Kidd articulates the situation. What I also like about Kidd’s work is that he does not hold anything back. While he confesses his personal admiration for the good the man did, Kidd presents a complete picture of his evil deeds (e.g., Whitefield working to advance slavery in Georgia). This seems to me to be the proper role of the historian.
Anne Arundel County Council Candidate David Whitney's Questionable Defense of State Militias
David Whitney is an instructor in Michael Peroutka’s Institute on the Constitution and is also chaplain of the MD/VA branch of the white separatist League of the South. He is also seeking the Democratic nomination to run for Anne Arundel County Council.
Whitney is a minister who believes the Bible supports no restrictions on the Second Amendment. As a part of a recent newspaper interview, Whitney says he was asked about his view of state militias. He claims a Constitutional mandate but even more basic than that, he says opponents of militias are the enemies of God. As I will demonstrate below, his appeal to the Bible is highly questionable. Whitney writes:
So the opponents of the Militia are really opponents of God’s Law. For example, you simply need to obey what Jesus said in Luke 22:36 (KJV) “Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take [it], and likewise [his] scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” Therefore it would be lawless to amend away the Second Amendment. So those who oppose Constitutional Militia not only reject the Founders of our Country, they reject and violate the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitutions and more importantly they reject and violate the Law of God; the command of Jesus which is the Supreme Law of the Universe. They are the truly lawless ones in America and not those who believe Constitutional Militias must be reestablished in our land.
Ok, let’s look at Luke 22:36 in context:
35 Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?”
“Nothing,” they answered.
36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’[b]; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38 The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That’s enough!” he replied.
Jesus and the disciples had just completed the Passover meal and Jesus was about to go out and pray. However, before He went out, He specifically referred to a prophecy that He would fulfill by being numbered among transgressors. Certainly, armed men would be considered subversives. Jesus did not stop talking at verse 36 as if he was encouraging the arming of a militia. If this was His teaching, then His militia would be pretty weak. They only had two swords and Jesus said in verse 38 that two was enough. Surely, the two swords were not enough to arm the disciples, but they would have been enough to number Jesus among the transgressors. Note that Jesus does not advise any more sales of purses, bags or sandals.
Even more evidence against Whitney’s interpretation is the fact that Jesus didn’t encourage the use of the weapons. According to John 18, Peter carried one of the two swords and when Jesus was confronted by the Roman soldiers later, Peter lopped off the ear of the high priest’s servant. The Luke 22 passage also records the scene without mentioning Peter.
47 While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, 48 but Jesus asked him,“Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”
49 When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.
51 But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.
52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, “Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs?53 Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hour—when darkness reigns.”
Understandably, the disciples were a little confused. They had swords but asked if they should use them. After Peter started carving up the opposition, Jesus strongly told him to stop and healed the servant. It seems pretty clear that Jesus had another thing in mind for the swords. They had served their purpose and it wasn’t to resist an unjust authority.
Whitney should worry more about bearing false witness than bearing arms. He is running as a Democrat with no intention to represent the people as a member of the Democratic party.