Warren Throckmorton

Our old friends Michael Peroutka and David Whitney are up to some shenanigans in Maryland.
Since we last looked in on the Christian reconstructionist, Constitution-bending duo, Institute on the Constitution founder Peroutka apparently was evicted from or quit the board of the League of the South. The League isn’t saying and Peroutka doesn’t respond to emails so we may never know what happened. Lead IOTC teacher David Whitney is still chaplain of the MD branch of the League so the lost cause lives at the IOTC.
In addition, Michael Peroutka is running as a Republican for Anne Arundel County (MD) Council and David Whitney is running for the same office as a Democrat. Whitney is also seeking a seat on the Democratic Party’s Central Committee while Peroutka wants to be on the GOP committee. A neo-Confederate, Whitney apparently wants to take the Democrats back to their Civil War positions. Who knows what Peroutka is thinking.
Peroutka didn’t even make it a year on the League board. At the 2013 League conference, he dedicated the work of the IOTC to the League and pledged his personal resources as well.
Of course, these guys aren’t serious candidates. They may be hoping to fool enough voters to get past the June 24 primary, but I doubt they will succeed. I imagine Peroutka could make a case that he aligns with certain elements within the GOP (tea party) but Whitney is another story. Whitney, a minister, appears to be bearing false witness in an obvious manner. There just isn’t a neo-Confederate, anarchist wing of the Democratic party.
Some Republicans are speaking out against Peroutka. Red State Maryland did an extensive backgrounder on Peroutka and the IOTC which quoted the Cato Institute’s Walter Olson.
Click the links for all articles on the Institute on the Constitution and Michael Peroutka.
 

On March 7, Mars Hill Church’s Board of Advisors and Accountability issued a statement about several matters of controversy involving Mark Driscoll and the church. One issue was the change of governance in 2007. The BOAA said:

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.

The BOAA invoked the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. At the time the BOAA statement came out, I initiated several contacts with ECFA’s president, Dan Busby. I learned that Mars Hill Church is a member in good standing and that ECFA considers Mars Hill to be in compliance with ECFA guidelines. This puzzled me since it appeared to me from a reading of the Mars Hill bylaws that the executive elders are allowed to vote on their own compensation. Such a practice, if happening, would be in violation of ECFA guidelines. I asked Mars Hill’s Communications Director Justin Dean about this with no answer. Mr. Busby declared that MHC was in compliance, but declined to explain his reasons. His most recent words to me on the subject were:

I can only say that we have very carefully reviewed this matter and we are absolutely confident of the compliance of Mars Hill with our standards with respect to this issue.  More detailed information on this would need to come from the church.

This is an unsatisfying answer. I expected a bit more from an organization which is set up as an accountability group. This answer says – we can’t tell you why, but just trust us and trust Mars Hill. For their part, Mars Hill Church is one of the most frustrating organizations I have ever dealt with. They do not acknowledge legitimate questions from media and often engage in spin when they do speak. They have threatened employees not to disclose information while employed and thereafter as well.
I asked Nicholas Romanello, a lawyer whose practice includes considerable experience in not-for-profit governance and who is a trustee of a religious school in West Palm Beach, FL for his opinion. After he reviewed the MHC bylaws, I asked Romanello if the bylaws allow the executive elders to vote on their own compensation. He said their actual practice isn’t clear from the bylaws. On the other hand, he said, “There is nothing in the bylaws I looked at which would prevent this. They might have a board policy which would prevent it, but the bylaws would allow it.”
Eventually, I found this statement on the MHC website:

The independent members of the Board of Advisors and Accountability set executive elders’ compensation. Additionally, an independent compensation study is done for our executive elders by an external accounting firm.

This statement seems to address the matter. Although the bylaws do not require the compensation to be set by the members alone, the website claims they are handling it in a way that meets ECFA guidelines. If that is how it is being handled, then Busby’s confidence would be correct on that point. Nevertheless, for other reasons, I am still not convinced that Mars Hill is in compliance on all points.  More specifically, I wonder if all of the independent members of the BOAA meet the ECFA’s criteria for independence.
The ECFA defines independence as follows:

Board independence.  The organization should take care to maintain the reality, not just the appearance of independent board governance. Requiring the predominance of independent board members helps ensure the board will take official action without partiality, undue influence, or conflict of interest.
To assess the reality of board independence, ECFA looks beyond the majority of independent board members on the board roster. ECFA is just as concerned about the reality of board independence as with the mathematical determination of a majority of independent board members.
ECFA defines independent board members as:

1. Persons who are not employees or staff members of the organization.
2. Persons who may not individually dictate the operations of the organization similar to an employee or staff member. A person who is an uncompensated CEO, for instance, is not independent.
3. Persons who are not related by blood or marriage to staff members or other board members. Blood or marriage relationships are defined for the purposes of the standard as being his or her spouse, ancestors, brothers and sisters (whether whole- or half-blood), children (whether natural or adopted), grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and spouses of brothers, sisters, children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
4. Persons who do not report to or are not subordinate to employees or staff members of the organization.
5. Persons who do not report to or are not subordinate to other board members.
6. Persons who do not receive a significant amount for consulting or speaking, or any other remuneration from the organization.
7. Persons who do not have relationships with firms that have significant financial dealings with the organization, officers, directors or key employees.
8. Persons who are not the paid legal counsel, related to the paid legal counsel, or are employed by the firm that is the paid legal counsel of the organization.
9. Persons who are not the auditors, related by blood or marriage to the auditors (see definition of blood or marriage in #3 above), or are employed by the auditing firm of the organization.

Given the size of the board, only one member who is not truly independent could create a majority voting bloc (one independent and three executive elders).  Mars Hill is run by the BOAA so the entire church is dependent on four people (Michael Van Skaik, Larry Osborne, James MacDonald, and Paul Tripp) who do not attend Mars Hill and the three executive elders (Mark Driscoll, Sutton Turner and Dave Bruskas). According to sources within MHC speaking on condition of anonymity, there may be some issues with the current BOAA on points 6 and 7.
Regarding point six, James MacDonald and Paul Tripp are speaking at this year’s Resurgence conference and have spoken at other Mars Hill events in the past. According to my sources, they get around $5k for a brief session, plus whatever book sales bring in.
On points six and seven, Michael Van Skaik’s consulting firm relationship with Mars Hill could be relevant. I have spoken to two former leaders who were coached by people from Van Skaik’s firm. If indeed all pastors were/are mentored by coaches from Van Skaik’s group, than that would have to be a significant contract.
James MacDonald deserves additional mention. MacDonald is the pastor Harvest Bible Church based in the suburbs of Chicago. As noted, he is speaking at this year’s Mars Hill Resurgence conference and has spoken at previous conferences. MacDonald and Driscoll moderated some of the Elephant Room discussions and are co-founders of Churches Helping Churches, a benevolent non-profit organization helping churches hit by disasters. They are currently on the board together. MacDonald was with Driscoll at John MacArthur’s Strange Fire conference. They certainly appear to be friends, peers and co-workers which could complicate the independence aspect of the BOAA role.
I realize that my concerns may be completely misplaced. Perhaps the fees or other compensation might not be considered “significant” by the ECFA or Mars Hill. Perhaps my sources are incorrect about the fees. There may be circumstances which make these apparent issues of no consequence. However, given the ECFA’s vague “trust us” responses, the ECFA’s tight definition of independence, the lack of information from MHC, and the small size of MHC’s BOAA, I think these matters are worth considering.
If Mars Hill truly is in compliance with what ECFA considers to be good governance, then I should also turn my attention to the ECFA. I think the ECFA guidelines seem reasonable for a non-profit organization that is not a church. However, I question how a local church can adopt these guidelines and still be a church. To me, Mars Hill and other stand alone megachurches seem more like mini-denominational organizations than local churches. I will explore these ideas in my next post on the ECFA and Mars Hill, probably tomorrow.

Myers & DeWall Talk Psych is a new psychology blog that I will visit regularly. In my view, David Myers is the premier social psychology educator in the nation and Dewall has done important work in the field as well.  Anything Myers touches is of high quality and I suspect this will become a popular site for students and professors alike.
The first post by Nathan DeWall examines the concept of wealth addiction. It is not really an addiction but pretty important to people when they want what they perceive money can buy.
I wish them well and anticipate many helpful contributions.

The prayer case in Greece, NY and the one in Maryland I mentioned yesterday started me thinking about why such prayers are being offered and contested. I recognize the First Amendment implications of such cases and have interest in preserving religious liberty without establishment of Christianity as a preferred religion. However, I also thought of the matter as an evangelical and reflected on the teachings of Jesus in Matthew 6:

5 “When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners [a]so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 6 But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.
7 “And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words. 8 So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.

In light of this teaching, I asked myself why conservative evangelicals like Commissioner Robin Frazier in Maryland want to pray in public. Perhaps government officials who want to pray should pray at home before the meeting. Probably those who pray in public for effect should reflect on the meaning of these teachings.
Perhaps such Christians feel God will bless meetings more if prayers are offered. I’ve been around long enough to see bad decisions come out of meetings which began with prayer so I don’t think there are any guarantees. That kind of thinking seems to treat prayer like a lucky charm or magic incantation.
I wonder if evangelicals who want to pray before public meetings would be so keen on the practice if the officials were praying prayers of another religion, like this Buddhist prayer:

Metta Karuna Prayer
Oneness of Life and Light, Entrusting in your Great Compassion,
May you shed the foolishness in myself, Transforming me into a conduit of Love.
May I be a medicine for the sick and weary,
Nursing their afflictions until they are cured;
May I become food and drink, During time of famine,
May I protect the helpless and the poor, May I be a lamp,
For those who need your Light, May I be a bed for those who need rest,
and guide all seekers to the Other Shore. May all find happiness through my actions,
and let no one suffer because of me. Whether they love or hate me,
Whether they hurt or wrong me, May they all realize true entrusting,
Through Other Power, and realize Supreme Nirvana.
Namo Amida Buddha

I imagine that would be meaningful to any Buddhists present and I can build a bridge to my own beliefs but is it necessary to decide zoning questions or approve development projects? I can imagine that some Christians who want to pray in Jesus’ name would be offended by a prayer realizing “Supreme Nirvana.”
I realize I may be missing something so I invite your respectful and gentle comments.

A First Amendment case is brewing in Maryland involving sectarian prayers and a prayer book wrongly attributed to George Washington.

The prayer recited by Commissioner Robin Bartlett Frazier Thursday that she said is from George Washington has been proven to not belong to the first president, but is often used by Christian Conservative politicians, according to a scholar.

Friend and Messiah College history professor John Fea provided the expert commentary:

John Fea, chair of the History Department at Messiah College, said the prayer comes from the so-called George Washington Prayer Book, which was found in a chest of papers by one of Washington’s descendants in the 1890s. The University of Virginia, which houses the Papers of George Washington, and the Smithsonian Institution have concluded, based on the handwriting, that it was not written by Washington, Fea said.

More from the Baltimore Sun.