Category: Mars Hill Church

Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability: Buying Place on Best Seller Lists Violates Standards

On Wednesday, Ruth Graham, writing in The Atlantic, quoted the president of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability Dan Busby as saying that schemes such as the one which resulted in Mark Driscoll’s book Real Marriage showing up on various best seller lists are “unethical and deceptive.” Since the whole thing took place before Mars Hill became a member of ECFA, there will be no consequences of the scandal with that group (even though MHC and Driscoll benefited from the contract after the church became an ECFA member).
I contacted Busby for elaboration on his assessment and he added some detail to his comments regarding the relationship between churches and products created by organization leaders. Busby told me in an email:

It is unethical and deceptive for ECFA-accredited churches (and other organizations) to:
a.   make efforts to mask the method of procuring products authored or developed by an organization’s leader in order to improve product ratings, and/or
b.   procure products authored or developed by an organization’s leader at a higher price than otherwise available for the sake of improving product ratings, even if there is a valid ministry purpose for paying the higher price.

Busby pointed to a ECFA Advisory Opinion on the subject which is as follows:

Product Procurement

Overview.  The leaders of many ECFA members author or develop various intellectual properties, including books.  Royalties received by these leaders for intellectual properties owned by the ECFA member should be considered as one of the elements of compensation when the organization’s governing body determines compensation for the leaders.
Additionally, the organization’s governing body should ensure that the organization is not involved in unethical and deceptive practices relating to the procurement of products authored or developed by its leaders.  The appropriate avenues with which to procure products should be reviewed against the backdrop of ECFA’s Standards 1, 4, and 6.
Standard 1 – Biblical truths and practices.  “Every member shall subscribe to a written statement of faith clearly affirming a commitment to the evangelical Christian faith, or shall otherwise demonstrate such commitment and shall operate in accordance with biblical truths and practices.”
In several of his letters, the Apostle Paul stresses the importance of being beyond reproach and behaving in such a way as to avoid even the appearance of wrong-doing. He tells us that we need to be circumspect to those outside the Church. The reason Paul most often gives is that we must not give Satan any opportunity to destroy the reputation of Christ. Arguably, and in an eternal sense, it may be true that the business of ministries and churches is of concern to God and not to others judging from the outside. However, Scripture is also very clear about our need to be open, honest, and above reproach as we wrestle with the issues of life before Christ’s return. As the Apostle Paul said, “For we are taking pains to do what is right, not only in the eyes of the Lord but also in the eyes of men” (2 Corinthians 8:21).
Standard 4 – Use of Resources.  “Every member shall exercise the appropriate management and controls necessary to provide reasonable assurance that all of the member’s operations are carried out and resources are used in a responsible manner and in conformity with applicable laws and regulations, such conformity taking into account biblical mandates.”
The use of resources in a responsible manner includes managing resources in a God-honoring way. An organization that has expended assets in an unwise manner may diminish its own Christian witness.
Standard 6 – Compensation-Setting and Related-party transactions. “Every organization shall set compensation of its top leader and address related-party transactions in a manner that demonstrates integrity and propriety in conformity with ECFA’s Policy for Excellence in Compensation-Setting and Related-Party Transactions.”
Analysis. In reviewing these Standards and their related commentaries against certain methods in which products may be procured, the ECFA Board, Standards Committee, and Staff found the following:
A potential conflict of interest arises when an organization’s leader decides the organization will promote or purchase books authored by the leader, with the leader receiving royalties on the books.  This risk of a conflict-of-interest is heightened when, in relation to products authored or developed by leaders of ECFA members, (a) products are purchased at a higher price than is required and/or (2) there is an effort to mask the method of procuring products in order to improve product rating.
ECFA members must avoid an actual conflict-of-interest by utilizing the related-party transaction process outlined in ECFA’s Policy for Excellence in Related-Party Transactions when purchasing products authored by an organization’s leader.
If an organization pays a higher price than required for procuring products authored or developed by leaders of an ECFA member, there must be a valid ministry purpose for paying the higher price.  Otherwise, the excess expenditure of funds is for a non-ministry purpose.
Where an organization attempts to mask the method of procurement from organizations that determine product ratings, ECFA believes such practices are not in accord with biblical truths and practices.
ECFA’s Positions.  It is unethical and deceptive for a member organization to:

  1. make efforts to mask the method of procuring products authored or developed by an organization’s leader in order to improve product ratings, and/or
  2. procure products authored or developed by an organization’s leader at a higher price than otherwise available for the sake of improving product ratings, even if there is a valid ministry purpose for paying the higher price.

This opinion clearly applies to the RSI-Mars Hill partnership. The method of moving the books was masked in order to fool those who make up the best seller lists and books were purchased at retail price in order for them to count for purposes of the “improving product ratings.” I appreciate the ECFA guidance on this matter and hope that it informs practice in the evangelical community.
Initially Mars Hill Church called the scheme an “investment” and “opportunity” but then changed direction a bit calling the contract “unwise.” I wonder if the church or maybe even Driscoll himself will ever step up and agree with the ECFA.
 
To see all posts on Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church, click here.

Publisher Corrects Citation Problems in Mark Driscoll's Book Who Do You Think You Are

In December 2013, I documented the presence of copied material from an InterVarsity Press reference book in Mark Driscoll’s book, Who Do You Think You Are? The material from a Dictionary of Paul and His Letters was copied without citation from a Docent Research Group report on Ephesians. See that post for more details.
Now the publisher has addressed the plagiarized material by adding footnotes to the book with the proper reference to Clinton Arnold’s article in the Dictionary. The changes haven’t shown up in the Google or Kindle version, but can be seen via the “Look Inside” feature on Amazon. Here is the before and after image:

Footnotes have been added to properly source the material that was unsourced previously.

Harper Collins Christian publisher stated in January that the problems in Real Marriage would be addressed. They addressed at least two problems. Now they have addressed the problems in another book.

I wonder how expensive it is to make all of these corrections.

For an interactive chart with all of the plagiarism and other citation problems to date, click here.

To see all posts on Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church, click here.

The Atlantic Asks Can Megachurches Handle Mega Money? Puts Focus on Mark Driscoll Controversy

Ruth Graham, writing for The Atlantic, follows the money in the Mark Driscoll controversy over his Real Marriage book. She does a really fine job of bringing together many details to put the spotlight on pastors with all the trappings of celebrity status.
Graham raises important questions about transparency in financial and other matters which are at the heart of much of the strife at Mars Hill currently. As I noted in my post on the by-laws, the decision making authority, including regarding the elders’ compensation is concentrated in seven people, three of whom are staff. The potential for conflicts of interest seems great.
I encourage you to read and tweet the article.

The Seeds of Trouble: Mars Hill Church, Mark Driscoll and the 2007 Purge

Update: For Facebook group information, read to the bottom

Over the past several months, I have talked with quite a few former Mars Hill Church members and ministers. A common theme is that the current difficulties being experienced at the church have at least some of their roots in a change of governance in 2007.  At that time, Paul Petry and Bent Meyer were fired as elders which set off a firestorm of discontent among certain members. The discord even reached the Seattle Times with an article by Janet Tu titled, Firing of pastors roils Mars Hill Church.

The article mentioned the fired elders and noted that changes in the by-laws seemed to spark the discord. According to then pastor Jamie Munson, the object of the changes was to share power, not hoard it. The 2007 changes were resisted by Petry, Meyer, Lief Moi and others and were followed up by the current 2011 by-laws which further consolidates power in the hands of the board of elders (see this post for the by-laws). The 2011 by-laws move even further away from the original model of governance.
Judging from conversations I am having with former Mars Hill members and staff, as well as their various Facebook postings, some of the current distress and discord can be traced back to the difficulties in 2007. After the by-laws were approved, MHC required members to rejoin under the new scheme. About 1,000 members declined to rejoin.

Some of the more infamous video clips of Mark Driscoll come from that period (Some of those sermons have been removed from the MHC website). In one sermon, Driscoll describes how to keep elders in line

As noted, once one gets past the important concerns of plagiarism, and using Result Source to get on best seller lists, much of the concerns I hear relate to authoritarian leaders, hurt feelings and disrupted relationships from that turbulent period of the church’s history. The additional changes in the church by-laws and increasingly corporatization of Mars Hill into a brand (some recall and describe the “I am the brand” speech) have led to significant reaction on the part of current and former staff.

At least that is how it appears to me.

A detailed history of the situation is beyond my time constraints now, but I did want to raise this observation in the midst of covering the other controversies. There are other blogs and sources which help tell the story; some are first person accounts from those involved. Here are some of those accounts and resources.

My Story by Jonna Petry (wife of Paul Petry) at Joyful Exiles. This is a good initial reading of the timeline in the firing of Paul Petry from his wife’s perspective

Mars Hill Timeline from Joyful Exiles. – There is a wealth of information here.

Bent Meyer Breaks His Silence at Wartburg Watch.

Wenatchee the Hatchet – A former Mars Hill member provides a wide range of information about the history of MHC. Use the search engine to track down posts.

Repeal the By-Laws – Exonerate Pastors Paul Petry and Bent Meyer – A Facebook group started by Rob Smith to promote the exoneration of the fired elders Paul Petry and Bent Meyer.

See all posts on Mars Hill Church and Mark Driscoll

Amended and Restated By-Laws of Mars Hill Church (UPDATED)

UPDATE: When I first secured a copy of the Mars Hill by-laws, I thought I had the most recent copy of them. However, I did not. The by-laws were amended again twice, most recently in May of 2012. Here is a copy of the May, 2012 revision.  It is possible that the by-laws have been amended since then because the Board of Advisors and Accountability has the power to amend them at any time. However, my sources believe these are the most recent by-laws. I am adding the 2012 by-laws to this post so that interested readers can compare the two versions. One major change is the name of the ruling board, from Board of Elders to Board of Advisors and Accountability. Otherwise, not that much changed as far as I can tell.
……….. (beginning of original post)
Friday, Mars Hill Church issued a statement of defense and clarification of several matters of public interest. The full statement is on their website and with brief commentary here.  In the statement, the MHC Board of Advisors and Accountability referred to a change in governance. Some of these changes have led to discord at the church and public criticism. The following paragraph addresses the governance matter:

CHANGES TO GOVERNANCE

For many years Mars Hill Church was led by a board of Elders, most of whom were in a vocational relationship with the church and thus not able to provide optimal objectivity. To eliminate conflicts of interest and set the church’s future on the best possible model of governance, a Board of Advisors and Accountability (BOAA) was established to set compensation, conduct performance reviews, approve the annual budget, and hold the newly formed Executive Elders accountable in all areas of local church leadership. This model is consistent with the best practices for governance established in the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability standards. Mars Hill Church joined and has been a member in good standing with the ECFA since September of 2012.

I have reviewed the MHC by-laws (click here to review a pdf of the by-laws) and I must admit that I am confused by this recent statement. If anything, it seems to me that these by-laws create more conflicts of interest and less oversight for the decision makers at MHC.  The executive elders (Mark Driscoll, Sutton Turner, Dave Bruskas) are a part of the seven member board which appears to be the main decision making body and according to the statement above, “hold the newly formed Executive Elders accountable.” This board sets compensation, appoints elders, handles legal matters, etc. The preaching and teaching elder (Driscoll) has special enumerated powers that the other elders do not have.
I have contacted the ECFA to ask for their standards so I can compare these by-laws with those standards.
Below are some sections of interest from the by-laws:

At Mars Hill, members do not vote.

The entire elder council includes all those appointed as elders and the three members of the executive elder team (Driscoll, Turner, Bruskas). Elders may be removed by the executive elders.

The full council votes on doctrinal changes and on a slate of elders by the current board of elders (see below for the composition of that board).

This appears to be the Board of Advisors and Accountability which consists of the three executive elders (Driscoll, Bruskas, & Turner) and the non-paid outsiders (Tripp, Osborne, Skaik, & Phelps). This board is self-perpetuating and appears to be the final authority at MHC.

The Board of Elders set the salary for the executive team, which means that the executive team plus one other member can set salaries.


Mark Driscoll is president with a pretty strong position.