Month: March 2014

Last Friday, Mark Driscoll addressed the Mars Hill congregation about some of the recent controversies involving him. In his letter, which can be viewed here, he addressed the scheme to elevate his book Real Marriage to #1 on the New York Times best seller list, among other issues.
Reaction on social media has ranged from skepticism to uncritical praise. Some reactions (for example this one) contain skepticism along with hope that repentance and reconciliation result from the effort. I certainly hope for a good resolution as well and wish only the best for all concerned.
Reading the apology, I have some reactions.
The pledge to stay off social media seems odd since he has a media team to do most of that for him.
Where was the mention of plagiarism? Surely, the extent of this problem should have been addressed. Driscoll noted in the letter that he planned to teach courses at Corban University and Western Seminary.  I would think those institutions would investigate the matter further. According to Driscoll himself, plagiarism is a serious matter and one which could lead to discipline at his Resurgence training center. There was no mention of this in the letter.
Regarding the New York Times best seller controversy, I am curious about when Driscoll developed the conviction that the scheme was wrong. Was it before or after the World Magazine article?  Spokesperson Justin Dean initially described the scheme as an “investment” and an “opportunity.” Surely, Driscoll had some input into that statement. Then the Board of Advisors and Accountability called it common but “unwise.” Finally, in this letter, Driscoll said he saw the ResultSource scheme as a way to enhance sales. Now, he says, he sees it as “manipulating a book sales reporting system.”  Since the contract signed by his employee Sutton Turner makes it very clear that the scheme was designed to manipulate the book sales reporting system, I don’t understand what Driscoll means. Is he saying he didn’t read/understand the contract? Is he saying he was deceived by his staff or board, but now he sees the light? The three statements with their discrepancies arouse skepticism and raise as many questions as they answer.
I wonder when Driscoll is going to acknowledge the revisionist history he has promoted. He has purged his bio of the designation #1 best selling author but he continues to refer to himself as the “founding pastor” of Mars Hill. It is well established that he founded the church with Lief Moi and Mike Gunn but this information has been removed from the Mars Hill website. As a sign of change, I would expect to see the facts restored and former elders and staff exonerated.
Driscoll describes his team as unified but in the same letter admits that there has been significant staff turnover. The latter admission is an understatement as most of the branch pastors have left in the last couple of years. If anything, the staff situation seems to depict a different picture.
Driscoll lauds the Board of Advisors and Accountability as a blessing. Those who left MHC over the shift to the BOAA as the ruling body certainly wouldn’t agree. That difference could be chalked up to doctrinal disagreements. However, leaving those differences aside, it is hard to sell the BOAA as a vehicle of “true accountability.” According to the MHC by-laws,* Driscoll is the president of Mars Hill and his elders serve at the pleasure of the three executive elders (the executive elders can remove elders at any time; Driscoll can remove church officers at any time).
Four independent board members also serve but they can be removed from the BOAA by a simple majority vote. This only requires that the three executive elders and one other independent board member agree. There is no broader accountability by the full council of elders. They cannot even call a meeting without the BOAA doing so. The people don’t have voting privileges, and the elders can’t meet unless the BOAA convenes them. The authority is concentrated in a very small group of people who perpetuate their position. The full council of elders get one chance every year to vote down the full slate of elders but Driscoll himself cannot be removed from the BOAA unless it is determined by the independent members of the BOAA that he has disqualified himself as an elder.
I find the situation interesting as just one case of how some evangelicals organize themselves around a central figure. I am open to new information and really hope and pray for a good resolution to the concerns raised by former Mars Hill members as well as those who count themselves supporters of the church.  Mars Hill Church has offered itself as a model of how to do church and so it should be expected that observers will ask questions and offer critiques.
 
* the by-laws can be changed at any time by the BOAA. It may be that a newer set exists since the document could be changed without notice.
 

Yesterday, I reported that Mark Driscoll addressed his church regarding some of the controversies swirling around him. The tone of the letter posted on The City (Mars Hill’s private online community) was conciliatory but to some long time Mars Hill observers, disappointingly familiar. One can find similar themes in a November 11, 2007 sermon titled, The Rebel’s Guide to Joy in Humility. In the earlier sermon, Driscoll acknowledged, at times with more candor, some of the same things he told Mars Hill yesterday that he had just realized within the last two years. In 2007, Driscoll preached:

We’re calling tonight’s sermon “The Rebel’s Guide to Joy in Humility”. And I will start by saying I have no right to teach on this subject. I know many of you are probably thinking, “Pastor Mark is teaching us on humility. That’s funny.” I guess Brittany Spears will come in and do a parenting seminar at Mars Hill as well since we’re at it.
It comes up in the book and so I need to preach it. But let me say this, that in all honesty, having reflected on this, I believe that humility is the great omission and failure in my 11 years of preaching. I believe that this is my greatest oversight, both in my example and in my instruction. I therefore do not claim to be humble. I do not claim to have been humble. I’m convicted of my pride and I am a man who is by God’s grace pursuing humility. And so in many ways, this is a sermon that I’m preaching at myself. This is a sermon that you’re welcome to listen in on as I preach to myself. But I truly believe that were there one thing I could do over in the history of Mars Hill, it would be in my attitude and in my actions and in my words, to not only emphasize sound doctrine and courage and strength and commitment and conviction, but to add in addition to that, humility as a virtue.
And so I’ll start by [asking] your forgiveness and sincerely acknowledging that this has been a great failure.
Furthermore, I apologize and repent publically to you, the church, for whom I am responsible for much pride in the history of my ministry that some of you have poorly imitated. And for that, I’m deeply sorry. And thirdly, to say that I am not a humble man. But as result of study, I’m a man who is acknowledging his pride and pursuing humility by God’s grace.
I would have been someone up until very recently who would have said, “Well, I know my tone was bad and my tactics were bad and my attitude was bad and my actions were bad, but my objective was good, so” – the ends justify the means.
Paul would say, “No. It’s the motive and the method and the mission.” They all count. You can’t pursue a good thing in a bad way and expect God to be well pleased. That in addition to a good cause, you must have the humility to go about it in a good way.
Here’s the bottom line. Your name really doesn’t matter that much. My name really doesn’t matter that much. Our name, Mars Hill Church, really doesn’t matter that much. The name of Jesus, that matters. That matters, because Jesus is wonderful. Jesus is good. And Jesus is loving and gracious and merciful and kind. And Jesus is sinless and Jesus is God who became a man who lived humbly and allowed us to murder him, and he rose in victory to give us new life. And he has been exalted and he is worthy of our speaking of his name honorably, gladly and humbly and continually.
You will be miserable if you live for the glory of your own name. I will be miserable if I live for the glory of my own name. We will be miserable if we live for the glory of the name of our church or our ministry or our organization or our mission. Above all of that must be the name of Jesus, which means that the right answer to every question is this – “What will exalt the name of Jesus? What will make Jesus look good, because Jesus is good?”
Now I tell you this in great sorrow because I have not told you this enough and I have not demonstrated it well. I have failed you in that regard.
In conclusion, I apologize for my failure to both exemplify humility and to emphasize it in my instruction. Furthermore, I am exceedingly glad that Jesus is our God. And in that, I find much hope for our future.
I love you guys, and I believe that this issue of humility is the defining issue for the next season of our church. The question is not, “Will we grow?” The question is, “Will we grow in humility?” I pray that we do.

When one compares this sermon to the letter from yesterday, it appears that he acknowledged more and and apologized for more in 2007. It also seems as though the issues haven’t changed that much in seven years.