Liberty University Says There Were Other Reasons Board Members Were Upset With Mark DeMoss

In response to statements made yesterday by Mark DeMoss, this morning Liberty University sent along another statement about Mark DeMoss’ resignation from the Liberty University board of trustees.

Individual board members have varied reasons for their displeasure regarding Mark DeMoss’ comments to the Washington Post, most of which are not related to his disagreement with Jerry Falwell’s personal endorsement of Donald Trump or a belief that Mark DeMoss’ motivations were entirely political.  Liberty would prefer to not inventory or detail all these reasons.
After reviewing the Washington Post article, I can’t readily point to what this statement might be referring to. The entire piece was about DeMoss’ disagreement with Falwell’s endorsement.

Mark DeMoss: Criticism of Jerry Falwell Jr's Trump Endorsement Led To Board Executive Committee Ouster

On March 1st Mark DeMoss — Jerry Falwell, Sr.’s chief of staff from 1984-1991 and head of the largest PR firm in America working exclusively with Christian organizations — told the Washington Post’s Philip Rucker that Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. made a mistake by endorsing Donald Trump for president. Then in late April, according to DeMoss, the executive committee of the Liberty University Board of Trustees voted to ask DeMoss to resign from the Board’s executive committee. For many years, DeMoss chaired that same committee.
When I became aware that DeMoss’ name had been removed from the Liberty University listing of trustees, I asked Liberty for comment. Today, the university sent this statement:

Mark DeMoss sent an email with his resignation on Tuesday, April 26, 2016, four days after the most recent Board of Trustees meeting. He was not removed from the Board of Trustees nor did the Board of Trustees ask for his resignation.

I then asked DeMoss about the resignation and he told a more detailed story:

On March 1st a Washington Post article appeared in which I expressed my disagreement with Jerry Falwell Jr’s formal endorsement of Donald Trump. Jerry and a number of fellow Liberty University trustees expressed to me and to the other trustees their disapproval of my speaking publicly about the subject.
At our April 21 executive committee meeting the committee voted to ask me to resign from the committee I had chaired for many years. I agreed, and did so in remarks to the full board the following morning.
Subsequently, on Monday, April 25, I sent a letter to Jerry and the chairman of the board and the new chairman of the executive committee, tendering my resignation from the board I had served for 25 years.

I asked Liberty University for a reaction to the DeMoss statement but did not get a response. (Since I published this post, Liberty responded. See the update below).
In the same March 1 Washington Post article, Jerry Falwell, Jr. said that his endorsement of Trump was not on behalf of Liberty University and that he didn’t intend to influence students or faculty. However, his influence may have spread to the Liberty executive committee members who, DeMoss said, voted for him to step down from a committee he once chaired. DeMoss told me he had been on the executive committee for eight years, and chose to leave the board completely once he stepped down from the executive committee.
UPDATE (5/5)

Liberty University does not typically give details of the occurrences at its Board of Trustee meetings but since Mark DeMoss has contradicted the University’s response and offered a different version, here is a clarification:
While members of the Executive Committee individually asked Mark DeMoss to resign from the Executive Committee, no vote was ever taken by the Executive Committee to ask Mark DeMoss to resign.  On Thursday, April 21, he was encouraged by members of the Executive Committee to remain on the Board and apologize to the Board.  At the Board of Trustees meeting the following day, Mark DeMoss offered an apology to the Board and tendered his resignation from the Executive Committee.  The Board of Trustees voted unanimously to accept the apology of Mark DeMoss in the Christian spirit of love and grace.   Mark DeMoss sent an email with his resignation on Tuesday, April 26, 2016, four days after the Board of Trustees meeting.  He was not removed from the Board of Trustees nor did the Board of Trustees ask for his resignation.

As I consider the matter, I wonder why it is acceptable to the Liberty board for Jerry Falwell to endorse a candidate as an individual not speaking for the univeristy, but it is not fine for a board member to express an opinion as an individual not speaking for the university.
UPDATE 2 – In response to Liberty’s statement, Mark DeMoss told me

  1. I was not encouraged by members of the Executive Committee to remain on the board; Jerry Jr was the only committee member who spoke to me that evening—after they had the attorney [Liberty’s general counsel] call and ask for my committee resignation.
  2. The committee said nothing to me about apologizing to the board the next morning. Jerry had suggested that two months earlier and I told him I would do so in person at the April 22 meeting.
  3. I did not tender my resignation in the full board meeting—I informed them of it. I tendered my resignation the night before to the attorney who called me on behalf of the committee. He told me if I chose not to resign they would vote to remove me (from the committee).

Hillsong Spokesman Responds to Petition Asking for Mark Driscoll's Removal from London Conference

With nearly 700 signers, Natalie Collins’ petition asking Hillsong to remove Mark Driscoll from the schedule of Hillsong’s London conference has taken off. However, Hillsong does not appear to be swayed by the action. In response to my request for comment about the petition, Hillsong spokesman Mark DeMoss replied:

Hillsong is aware of the petition. The whole point of keeping Mark (and Grace) Driscoll on the conference program is so Brian Houston can interview them about events of the past year.

Demoss, who once handled some PR duties for Driscoll and the former Mars Hill Church, added, “I don’t think that is ‘cheap grace,’ but rather, a thoughtful approach to challenging circumstances. I think it would be fair for the petitioners to judge this appearance after it takes place, but advance judgment seems premature and a bit unfair, in my view.”
Concerns expressed by Collins include:

This is both disappointing and of great concern to many across the UK and internationally.  Mark Driscoll resigned from leadership after many leaders and other within his church raised issues about unethical and abusive behaviour including:

  • Ex-leaders of Mars Hill Church repenting of their collusion with Mark Driscoll

  • Ex-members of Mars Hill reporting they have experienced spiritual abuse from Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll, including controlling and manipulative behaviour

  • Evidence of plagiarism in at least one book he has written

  • Misuse of tithes by Mars Hill Church

  • Unethical actions taken to ensure Grace and Mark Driscoll’s book was featured on a bestselling book list

  • Mark Driscoll’s public statements against women in leadership over the last two decades which have greatly undermined the Gospel message of women as leaders, evangelists and full members of the Body of Christ

For her part, Natalie Collins will continue to promote the petition, telling me that the statement is “disappointing” but that she plans to continue pressing the petition with Hillsong.
UPDATE: Ms. Collins added a fuller statement later in the afternoon:

Hillsong’s response is disappointing.  I appreciate they have “downgraded” Mark Driscoll’s contribution from a keynote speech to an interview alongside his wife Grace, however as Christians our focus should be on the broken hearted and the powerless, yet Hillsong have chosen to broadcast Driscoll’s voice.  None of those he has hurt will have their voice heard.  Clearly he has not made any significant progress in changing his behaviour, or he would have chosen to reject the Hillsong opportunity.  As it is, he is continuing to use power in a way that further damages those he has hurt and Hillsong are legitimising and colluding with this.  Some of those signing the petition are people who have been directly impacted by Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill and if this petition can offer an opportunity to people who have been damaged and silenced, then it is making a difference.  Hopefully Hillsong may reconsider, and if they do not, we may choose to peacefully protest at the conference itself.