Mars Hill Church Again Issues Copyright Takedown Notice on Mars Hill Global Video

Earlier today, Justin Dean, acting on behalf of Mars Hill Church, requested that You Tube remove video clips of Mark Driscoll and Sutton Turner talking about Mars Hill Global. In the video clips, which were made available to illustrate my commentary on the subject, both Driscoll and Turner clearly identify Mars Hill Global as a ministry of Mars Hill Church for the purpose of supporting international missions.’
I have contested the notice and will await You Tube’s decision, which could take up to 10 business days.  I firmly believe that the video clips are covered by Fair Use and are necessary to report accurately the relationship between Mars Hill Church and Mars Hill Global.
Last Friday, Mark Driscoll told his congregation that he was glad for the freedom of the press:

In addition, I really am blessed to live in a land where the law allows me to have freedom of speech, to have freedom of religion, to have freedom of assembly, freedom of the press. That means we get to assemble, and I get to open the Bible and teach whatever I believe to be true. But it means that others have that same legal opportunity. They have that same freedom, and so, and so others are free to, to say things as well.

One aspect of that freedom is the ability to use copyrighted materials to report news, or provide commentary and/or criticism. Clearly, the purpose of the videos in question is report news and provide commentary on Mars Hill Church and Mars Hill Global.
For all articles on Mars Hill Global, click this link.

League of the South's President Outlines Targets for Coming Guerrilla War

Michael Hill is the president of the League of the South. The League of the South should be an organization which exists only in history books. However, it exists and actually has a political candidate masquerading as a Republican in the Anne Arundel County (MD) Council race, Michael Peroutka.
Hill (similar to David Barton) recently penned a defense of private citizens owning whatever weapons the military owns in order for citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. And, according to Hill, we will probably need those arms:

If you trust that your government will never infringe your rights, then I suppose you’ll find my argument senseless. But if you fear, say, a future when drones fill the skies for the purpose of surveillance, intimidation, or worse, then you might see the need to own a couple of hand-held rocket launchers.

And beyond rocket launchers taking out drones, what other targets will be important?

But what about that liberal canard that says that no matter how well armed the citizens are, they will never be able to defeat the modern military in a toe-to-toe confrontation? First, that presumes that the US military would fire on its own people, a question whose answer we do not know. And, second, it presumes that the fight would be a conventional one. More likely, it will be Fourth Generation Warfare, which is just another way of saying guerrilla war.
In 4Gen Warfare the lines between the military and the political, economic, cultural, and social are blurred past the point of recognition. To oversimplify, the primary targets will not be enemy soldiers; instead, they will be political leaders, members of the hostile media, cultural icons, bureaucrats, and other of the managerial elite without whom the engines of tyranny don’t run.
4Gen Warfare doesn’t require that the populace be armed equal to the military and law enforcement. In fact, having such firepower, with few exceptions (such as full-auto “assault weapons,” silencers, and a handful of other esoteric toys), would be a logistical and tactical burden to the common 3- to 5-man group so common in this type of warfare. Stealth and the concentration of firepower at certain points for a short time are the keys to successful Gen4 Warfare, whether it’s busting up a traffic roadblock, ambushing a gun confiscation raid, or taking down a high-profile tyrant. If you want more from an historical standpoint, read about Michael Collins. If you want more from a modern, practical standpoint, read Joseph P. Martino’s Resistance to Tyranny: A Primer.

I wonder if Hill considers bloggers to be a part of the “hostile media?”
Do you think some crazy white separatists might actually think the rhetoric was intended for action?
 

In Deleted Videos, Mars Hill Leaders Talk About Mars Hill Global

Update: Earlier today, Justin Dean, acting on behalf Mars Hill Church filed a copyright claim against the video below. Just now, I contested the claim. The counter-notification process takes 10 days.
………………..
On July 15, I reported that Mars Hill Church removed three videos about Mars Hill Global from their You Tube account. Generally, those videos presented Mars Hill Global as the international mission arm of Mars Hill Church.  At that time, I wrote:

From my point of view, beginning in early 2012, Mars Hill created an impression that gifts to Mars Hill Global were mainly going to international mission efforts. Inadvertently or not, they created confusion (as they have admitted) with their various definitions of Mars Hill Global (is it a non-member audience, is it a fund, is it both?), and their constant references to international efforts in the context of Mars Hill Global pleadings. Actually, most of this has been admitted. What is remarkable is that they used “the preponderance” of donations to expand their locations, even though they gave donors almost no indication that the money was being spent in real time for those local purposes.
In accord with fair use guidelines, I clipped relevant material from the deleted videos. These clips indicate that Driscoll presented Mars Hill Global as something Mars Hill Church was doing in addition to church planting in the U.S. This is of course make sense since the international efforts after 2011 had a name (Mars Hill Global) and a fund (the Global Fund). Non-members gave money to the General Fund and the Global Fund of Mars Hill Church and at times, Mars Hill leaders referred to Mars Hill Global as people around the world who donated money. However, in these clips, Global is referred to as an effort conducted by Mars Hill Church.

Also on July 15, I pointed out three web pages on the Mars Hill website which identified Mars Hill Global as the Mars Hill approach to international missions with one page linking the two. That page has been altered to remove the evidence.
Below is a new video I made which contains portions of the removed videos that provide evidence that Mars Hill Church clearly identified Mars Hill Global as the international mission arm of the church rather than a source of funding for U.S. expansion solely provided by non-members. Several days after my initial video was posted, Mars Hill asked You Tube to remove the video, claiming a violation of copyright. I decided to make a more focused video and intend to contest any copyright claim Mars Hill Church makes because I believe the videos, including this one, have been made in keeping with Fair Use guidelines.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/XFiD7XkYtPk[/youtube]
To see all posts on Mars Hill Global, click the link.

In Georgia's 10th District, David Barton is Again an Issue

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.

This is what Bob Barr should have said about Barry Loudermilk.

A Former Member Speaks Out: Mars Hill Church Knows My Name

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.