This week, GOP voters in Georgia’s 10th District will decide which candidate, Jody Hice or Mike Collins, will face the Democrat nominee in the Fall. Richard Zimdars, a columnist for the Athens Banner-Herald, watched the two candidates debate and for at least two reasons decided that Collins might be the better choice. First Collins seemed more likely to work with opponents in Congress to achieve legislation. Second, Hice touts an endorsement from David Barton which is a problem for Zimdars. He writes:
Hice’s acceptance of Barton’s endorsement leads me to believe Hice lacks the capacity for close critical examination of his endorsements, not a good sign for the 10th District’s future if Hice becomes our national representative.
In the video Mark Driscoll released on Friday afternoon, he said that the task of Mars Hill leaders was complicated by the fact that so many people with complaints about the church were anonymous. Here are his exact words:
As well one of the things that has been complex is the fact that a lot of the people that we are dealing with in this season remain anonymous. And so we don’t know how to reconcile or how to work things out with people because we’re not entirely sure who they are. And so that has made things a little more complex and difficult as well.
I had two reactions to this claim. One, part of the reason that some have remained anonymous is because they have been afraid to identify themselves fully. Many of the former pastors and staff members felt forced to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to secure much needed severance income when they were terminated or quit at Mars Hill. In March, I posted a copy of one version of a Mars Hill non-disclosure agreement, supplied to me by former pastor Kyle Firstenberg. I have spoken to several former leaders who believed they would be sued by Mars Hill Church if they spoke out on the record. Since those leaders did make their concerns known when they left, they are only anonymous to the public, not to Mars Hill. Driscoll need only look to the policies practices of Mars Hill to understand why some people have been afraid.
Two, I have a hard time believing that there is a shortage of people who have made their identities known to Mars Hill leaders. I have interviewed over 50 former Mars Hill leaders and members who have made their concerns known to the executive elders with full identification. I have seen some of the formal charges and reviewed emails from executive elders and members where there is full identification of the former member’s identity. However, according to the former members, the leaders have not followed up on the issues.
One such former member is Bina E. She and her husband served in various leadership positions when they were at Mars Hill and as you will see, she identified herself to the leaders with no results. Bina E. said:
The comments about anonymous concerns are amazing to me. We wrote Mark [Driscoll] personally with our concerns in 2008– a gentle, truthful, heartfelt plea with our names on it. We received no response from him except from other pastors who said Mark was rocked by our letter, but that we burned our bridges with him. That was a sad thing to hear about the pastor who helped lead my husband to Christ and who married us. We also spoke directly with pastors, face to face, about our concerns before leaving– and when we left, we were dropped as friends by them after leaving; some more gradually and some more violently.
In 2012 or so, I received a Facebook friend request from Mark. This was surprising to me. I don’t know if Facebook randomly chooses names, or if an assistant did it(?) I didn’t accept the friend request, but instead responded with a message asking how he and his family were, telling him how we were, and saying that I am unwilling to be a Facebook “fan” but always willing to be a friend. As friends, we [my husband and I] were deeply concerned about what happened at Mars Hill and the direction it was going. I was quickly blocked. There are lots of us who spoke out quietly years ago, face to face, and with our names– Mars Hill knows our names. No one has ever reached out.
Finally, I’m disturbed that the statement about the reconciliation process being with a group of men? There is much reconciling to do with women. Also, there is much reconciling to do with non-elders– not the least of whom are former elders wives–Jonna, Joane, Tonya, Kathleen, etc. and kids. It’s such a strange process to me that only ex-elders are involved. I hope they address the many non-elders who raised these issues long ago.
I have heard similar stories from many former Mars Hill members. Some of those who are expressing problems have remained anonymous, it is true. However, there are numerous individuals who have contacted the leaders with no answer. Driscoll said the leaders would be willing to talk but gave little in the way of specifics about how to make that happen. One way to minimize the complexity is to simply start with the people who have already identified themselves.
Update: The entire video was available on the Mars Hill website but since the church is now closed, it is no longer available there. You can view it below, hosted on YouTube.
Saying he wanted to give the church an update on “one of the deepest learning seasons” of his life, Mark Driscoll delivered a 30 minute video message via the Mars Hill weekly update yesterday. Without giving many details about “the season,” Driscoll hinted at several issues but ignored others.
Driscoll began by discussing the beginning of his Christian life and the beginning of Mars Hill Church. Consistent with the dominant narrative in recent years, Driscoll omitted mention of Leif Moi and Mike Gunn who co-founded Mars Hill Church.
He said communication with the church had not been sufficient so the leaders started the weekly update series. Driscoll’s update was being delivered now before he left for his customary summer vacation.
Driscoll said he and the leaders had been silent recently in order to determine the nature of the problems. Calling the time “overwhelming and a bit confusing,” Driscoll said the leaders weren’t sure what was happening. He added that he wanted to make a godly response and submit to the authority of the Board of Advisors and Accountability.
Driscoll said, “A lot of the people we were dealing with in this season remain anonymous, and so we don’t know how to reconcile or how to work things out with people because we’re not entirely sure who they are.” This is a puzzling statement. Numerous people have contacted Mars Hill by name with their concerns with little response from the church.
Driscoll referred to the times of organizational change during 2006-2007 and 2011-2012. He said those changes were made in response to church growth but added that he now believes that he could have handled those changes in a more “sympathetic” manner. He said the changes had some “adverse personal implications for the people and the leaders who were involved.” Some people “were hurt,” Driscoll said, and “as a result there is a group of largely anonymous former leaders of our Mars Hill Church family and we want to reconcile with those men, our brothers in Christ, and so we have opened up a process that has been underway, and it is a relational reconciliation process, where an independent outside ministry, that’s part of the Peacemakers ministry is involved.”
Driscoll said the church was inviting the leaders in to speak to the Peacemakers team. Of course, it was the 20 former pastors that requested the process after efforts to get a hearing were denied. Driscoll said the process would go on until September. He added that they are not free to speak about the process because of the confidentiality requirements of Peacemakers.
Driscoll said that in the future the church would be using Bible based covenants with pastors and staff rather non-compete and non-disclosure agreements. While this sounds like a departure or improvement, without being able to see what is in the “covenants” it is hard to evaluate whether or not this is a sign of change.
Although Mars Hill has moved to remove fair use of their video materials from You Tube, Driscoll indicated that he was glad we live in a nation with freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Given the lack of engagement of Mars Hill with the media and their move to remove fair use materials, it is hard to take this sentiment seriously.
“We can’t respond to everyone, but we’re willing to learn from anyone,” Driscoll said about Mars Hill’s critics. While it is hard to take this seriously, it is clear that Mars Hill has changed the way they solicit donations as the result of my reporting on Mars Hill Global. If they were interested in learning or really being open to outside input, they could start by responding to requests for information, not just from me, but from donors to Mars Hill Global.
Driscoll addressed the possibility of a lawsuit by informing the congregation that the church is retaining documents, including emails in the event that the church is sued. However, he indicated that no such suit is current.
Driscoll told the congregation that he is learning the value of mourning and lamenting, that his empathy for women and children is higher than his empathy for other men and that he wants to be a more effect “spiritual father.” He assured the church that he did not plan to leave Mars Hill because he believes he is where he is supposed to be. Even though the congregation has no vote on Driscoll’s tenure, he thanked the church for allowing him to teach the Bible at Mars Hill.
Driscoll closed with a request for prayer that he would not respond with impatience or pride.
On the whole, this address was very short on specifics and completely ignored issues surrounding the financial problems of the church and the controversy over Mars Hill Global. It seems to be an effort to calm the nerves of a rattled congregation. My sources inform me that attendance has taken another dip and giving continues to trend downward. Probably the executive elders believed the people needed to hear from Driscoll.
I may be able to make some of the video available soon.
According to the Mars Hill Global FAQ page, $10 million have been given by non-members to the church. This is about as specific as one can get since they don’t provide enough information to sort it all out. Here is what they say about giving by the “global family“:
WHERE HAVE PAST GIFTS BEEN USED?
During fiscal years 2009-2014, over $10MM dollars has been given to Mars Hill Church by the Mars Hill global family. During that same time period $22.48MM has been spent on church planting in the US, India and Ethiopia. In 2009-11 over 80% of funds given by the Mars Hill global family went to Acts 29 church planting and funds were consistently spent in India for church planting in each of those years. In 2012- 2014 expenditures for church planting efforts in India and Ethiopia were increased with the preponderance of expenses related to church plants and replants in the U.S.
So this does not address how much money was given to the Global Fund that once was an donation option for Mars Hill members and non-members.
In the Mars Hill Church 2013 Annual Report, the church reported taking in nearly $2.3 million in Mars Hill Global Giving. It is not clear if the $2.3 million is money from non-members or if this is how much was donated to the Global Fund. In the annual report, all accomplishments on the Mars Hill Global page are related to India and Ethiopia. So it is reasonable to assume that the $2.3 million amount was donated toward international missions. Only Mars Hill can clear this up but they aren’t talking.
Although worded differently, blogger Justin Bullington asked yesterday on his blog what would have happened if the Global Fund actually went toward missions. Go read his post; he figures a couple of people groups could have been reached if the money had been spent on missions.
I thought about it in a slightly different way. I checked out how much it costs to fully support an Ethiopian evangelist for a year. It turns out that according to Mars Hill’s partner in Ethiopia, New Covenant Foundation, it costs $170/month to support an evangelist. Currently, according to the Global FAQ page, Mars Hill supports 40 evangelists. If Mars Hill is supporting them fully, then the yearly investment in Ethiopia is $81,600. They also support 33 in India which cost $200 per urban evangelist (rural evangelists are supported at $50/month). Assuming all evangelists are urban, Mars Hill spends $79,200 there. Combining the two countries, I estimate Mars Hill spent $160,800 on church planting during the past fiscal year.
Assuming a deduction of about 20% for administration, Mars Hill could have had $1.8 million to provide to missions during 2012-2013. In other words, they could have supported over 10 times the number of evangelists they are now. The group Mars Hill partners with for Ethiopian outreach New Covenant Foundation took in just over $450,000 in 2012. If the Global Fund giving was what it appears to have been, Mars Hill’s donations could have been a game changer for that organization. Instead, the “preponderance of expenses related to church plants and replants in the U.S.” (i.e., franchise locations in “Bellevue, WA; Everett, WA; Tacoma, WA; Phoenix, AZ; and soon Spokane, WA“).
These figures may not be accurate. Mars Hill could easily provide the data. In the mean time, I think these estimates are reasonable based on the information available.
This is old news but an article on right wing opinion site American Thinking got me to writing.
Bob Barr and Barry Loudermilk are seeking the GOP nomination next week to run for Georgia’s 11th District Congressional seat. Last week, they debated and in the debate Bob Barr made a strange charge against Barry Loudermilk. Watch, courtesy of Right Wing Watch:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l35geIQXnJg#t[/youtube]
Barr accuses David Barton of being anti-Semitic and challenges Loudermilk to deny Barton’s endorsement. The article that caught my eye on this was penned by David Brog and titled “Bob Barr Crosses the Line.” And indeed, Barr crossed the line. Some Jewish observers I know are uncomfortable with Barton’s Christian nation zeal but more to the point of Barr’s accusation, Barton is a big supporter of Israel. In fact, at times, he gets a little silly with it (e.g., predicting weather problems for nations that mess with Israel). Barr’s claim was just wrong and I hope Barr will apologize for it.
Sadly, Barr blew a chance to highlight Barton and Loudermilk’s vision of a Christian nation, based solely on Christian principles, giving advantage to Christian people. The Barton endorsement of Loudermilk is problematic on so many levels, and Barr chose to mention two things that aren’t even issues. Neither man appears to have sufficient discernment to serve in Congress. One thinks Barton is a Constitutional expert and the other thinks Barton opposes Israel. Heaven help the GOP voters of the 11th District.
