Tag: Sutton Turner

Sutton Turner Names Attorney and Responds to Mars Hill RICO Lawsuit

Sutton Turner’s Seattle attorney has notified the court and Turner notified plaintiff’s attorney that service would be accepted on the RICO lawsuit naming him and Mark Driscoll as defendants.* They are accused of running the church in a manner to financially benefit the leaders, especially Mark Driscoll.
In response to the suit, Turner exclusively provided the following statement via email:

For over a month, I have offered to meet with the Jacobsens and Kildeas. Unfortunately, they have not responded.  It has been 19 months since I resigned from Mars Hill. I have had many meetings and conversations with people, even people that were previously listed in legal demands against Mars Hill Church.  Although the plaintiffs have requested meetings with Mars Hill Church in the past, that request has not been offered to me personally in the 19 months since my disassociation with Mars Hill Church.
Since I have yet to be served with this lawsuit, I have hired an attorney to take service for me in the state of Washington. Last year, I wrote at length of my involvement in ResultSource and Global even after threats of litigation from counsel associated with Mars Hill Church.  I believe I have done everything I can to resolve this peaceably. Unfortunately, it is now time to prepare for a legal defense of these allegations.

Early in March, Turner said, “The history and culture of Mars Hill is one of both a lack of trust and transparency. Lack of transparency breeds distrust and distrust causes less transparency. It is a perpetual cycle that can exist within any organization or relationship.”
Turner’s co-defendant, Mark Driscoll, recently said he had not been seen the suit but called the allegations malicious and false.
An image of the notice of appearance is below (full document).
Turner RICO Service
 
* Earlier I stated that Turner had been served the lawsuit. That is not accurate and Turner has not been served. I apologize for the error.

Former Mars Hill Church Executive Pastor Sutton Turner Comments on RICO Lawsuit

From investyourgifts.com
From investyourgifts.com

Mark Driscoll and Sutton Turner are the defendants in a RICO lawsuit filed by two former Mars Hill Church couples. Driscoll recently spoke out and called the charges “false and malicious” and “without any merit.”
This morning, co-defendant in the suit — former executive elder Sutton Turner — responded to the matter on his blog.  About the suit, Turner said:

As time has passed, I have watched the pursuit of legal actions by my brothers and sisters towards the Church and former leaders. I empathize with them and hurt with them. After recently being named in a legal proceeding, but having yet to be served, I have reached out to the plaintiffs directly. They were probably unaware I was willing to meet with them directly. I hope to meet with them, empathize with their hurt, pray with them, apologize to them, and clear up anything I can.
I have been contacted by many news organizations to make a comment on the lawsuit. In the past two weeks, I have prayed. I have reached out to the plaintiffs directly to communicate my willingness to meet. And I continue to hope that Christ will walk us through this difficult but necessary process in a spirit of reconciliation.

Turner’s reaction to the suit is different than Driscoll’s. Rather than criticize his accusers, Turner seems to sympathize with them.

Nearly a year ago, I wrote a series of blog posts to help me heal as well as to bring clarity to others for their healing. I wrote about my involvement in Result Source and my involvement in Global. The history and culture of Mars Hill is one of both a lack of trust and transparency. Lack of transparency breeds distrust and distrust causes less transparency. It is a perpetual cycle that can exist within any organization or relationship.

Turner says he has yet to be served the suit.

RICO Lawsuit Filed Against Former Leaders of Mars Hill Church; ECFA Named As Co-Conspirator

marshillglobalannualreportclipThe long anticipated suit from a group of former members against former leaders of Mars Hill Church was filed today in the U.S District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle. Attorney Brian Fahling filed suit on behalf of plaintiffs Brian and Connie Jacobsen and Ryan and Arica Kildea.
The plaintiffs accuse defendants Mark Driscoll and Sutton Turner of engaging in

a continuing pattern of racketeering activity by soliciting, through the internet and the mail, contributions for designated purposes, and then fraudulently used significant portions of those designated contributions for other, unauthorized purposes. It was a pattern of racketeering activity that extended through a myriad of MHC projects, including the Global Fund, the Campus Fund, the Jesus Festival, and the promotion of Driscoll’s book Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, and Life Together (“Real Marriage”).

In a statement, the attorney filing the suit, Brian Fahling said:

A church is not simply a building and programs. Mars Hill Church was a community of individuals—non-member attendees who considered MHC to be their church home, members, elders and pastors—who worked together in pursuit of a common mission—to make disciples and plant churches in the name of Jesus. Needless to say, the four groups are interdependent and the church cannot function without each of them. However, Driscoll and Turner engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity so deeply embedded, pervasive and continuous, that it was effectively institutionalized as a business practice, thereby corrupting the very mission Plaintiffs and other donors believed they were supporting.

On the Global Fund, just today I posted two formerly undisclosed memos on Mars Hill Church’s Board of Advisors and Accountability’s decision to keep secret how the church spent funds on missions (Global Fund) and salaries.
It is interesting to see ECFA named as a co-conspirator in the suit. The memo disclosed earlier today indicates that Dan Busby approved the moves of Mars Hill Church to address the Global Fund and apparently had no problem with the lack of transparency. In contrast, Busby and the ECFA took a turn toward transparency by removing Gospel for Asia from membership in October of 2015.
While it is a sad day to see these matters come to civil court, perhaps this will lead to a settlement and closure.
Read the lawsuit by clicking the link.

The Behind the Scenes Mars Hill Global Maneuvers

Over a year after the last service was held at Mars Hill Church, there are still stories to be told.
Recently, I acquired two memos which provide details about Mars Hill Global, a mysterious aspect of the demise of Mars Hill Church. From 2012 until mid-2014, Mars Hill Church marketed Mars Hill Global as a fund to help support church planters in India and Ethiopia. However, at least some insiders at Mars Hill knew that the donations given through the Global Fund were spent primarily on church planting expenses in the United States. One memo I posted in 2014 suggested that international projects would bring in lots of dollars which could in turn be used to fuel domestic expansion.
Once I started asking questions about Mars Hill Global, changes began to happen on the Mars Hill website. Because initially the changes were unexplained, I made a video documenting at least one of the major changes. This was in response to claims from Mars Hill’s leaders that the Global Fund was not really a fund but a source of funds from donors who were not part of Mars Hill’s churches. As I demonstrate, this explanation seemed problematic at the time since Mars Hill members could either give to the general fund which was unrestricted or to the Global Fund which was presented to the church after 2012 as a fund to spread the Gospel outside of the U.S., especially in India and Ethiopia.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4EFX3-RXyg[/youtube]
An accounting of how Global Fund donations were spent has been an ongoing desire of many former Mars Hill members. In addition to wondering how the funds from church liquidation have been spent, former members still want to know how much money went to international mission efforts (see this petition).
The first of the two memos I have acquired on the subject was sent in June 2014. It was addressed to the lead pastors of the 15 locations and summarized the Board of Advisors and Accountability’s response to questions about Mars Hill Global which I began raising in May. In this we learn that Mars Hill Church leaders worked with Dan Busby of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability to change the messaging surrounding Mars Hill Global. According to this memo, Busby approved the decision to keep private the details about how much was actually spent on missions. Click on each thumbnail below to read the memo.

For now, I would like to pull out one important section:
MHC Memo GFund
In this memo, the BOAA and the ECFA specifically rejected transparency. While I have reason to believe that the decision was not unanimous among the executive elders (Mark Driscoll, Sutton Turner and Dave Bruskas) and BOAA, it is stunning that Mars Hill’s leaders withheld that information. As a non-profit accountable to the public and a church accountable to those who gave the money, this information should have been disclosed. However, for some reason, the information appears to be considered classified also by those currently wrapping up Mars Hill’s affairs. After he left Mars Hill, Sutton Turner planned to release the information but was warned by Mars Hill lawyers not to.
Looking back, one of the executive elders, Dave Bruskas told me in an email that he thinks more disclosure was warranted. Bruskas said:

In hindsight, I think itemizing money spent on domestic church planting, international church planting and relief efforts would have been helpful for donors and the general public.  I also think aggregating salaries in the separate line items of local church staffing costs and central staffing costs (including executive salaries) rather than lumping all compensation into a single category of “Personnel Costs” would have given donors and the general public a better picture of how donations were being spent.

The other memo, sent in early July, provides some insight into how much money was given via the the Global designation.

In this memo, the figure of $3-million for Mars Hill Global was projected for fiscal year 2015 based on comparable giving in FY 2014. For most of FY 2014 (July 2013-June 2014), donors had the option of designating Global Fund via the drop down menu. In the image above taken from the first memo, the Mars Hill BOAA decided not to reveal how much it cost to support 40 Ethiopia church planters. However, this can estimated since it was known that Mars Hill partnered with New Covenant Foundation which suggests $170/month/church planter. Mars Hill supporter 40 such families which leads to $81,600 if the support was full. They also supported Indian missionaries and did some translation work.*
These memos confirm much of what was speculation in 2014. Where I disagree with the thrust of this memo is the only mistake was to leave Global Fund on the Giving Page drop down menu. As I documented repeatedly in 2014, Mars Hill marketed Mars Hill Global as the way Mars Hill Church did missions. I don’t read that in these memos.
 
*Keep in mind, these are estimates since Mars Hill’s leaders both before and after the church closed failed to disclose the exact figures. The memos provide a bit more confirmation that the estimates are close.

Part Two of Sutton Turner's Thoughts on Forgiveness

Today, former Mars Hill Church executive pastor Sutton Turner extends his Mars Hill reflections in part two of his series on repentance and forgiveness.
I appreciate Turner’s efforts here. These are not brief posts, but rather indicate that he has thought about these matters. He seems to want to make amends in a public sense with his detractors, not by criticizing them but by acknowledging his mistakes. For instance, he tweeted:


I don’t want to quarrel much with Mr. Turner as he is taking time to reflect but I will note one area which may generate some additional discussion. To begin point seven, Turner says:

It is very disheartening when you want to sit down with someone and practice Jesus’ instructions given in Matthew 18, but they do not believe they have sinned against you and refuse to meet. What should you do? Forgive them.

This does not seem consistent with Matt. 18 where a different trajectory is envisioned when someone refuses to meet. The Matt. 18 progression is from a private conversation to involving some others to involving the ekklesia. Translated church, my view is that the word should be translated as it was at the time — assembly, particularly an assembly of citizens. The church had not been established when Jesus spoke these words and the context sounds more civic or legal. Two of three witnesses were to establish the truth of the offense as a precursor to presenting the case to the assembly. In practice, the way we do church today can accommodate this teaching but not every offense is a Matt. 18 matter, as I see it.
In any case, this is a matter for honest discussion. There are psychological benefits of letting go of resentment and, if this is what Turner is referring to, I can see benefit in it. Rumination and resentment are not good physically or psychologically. However, when unfinished business is involved, as in the case at Mars Hill Church, one can let go of resentment and still seek justice.
It is hard not to compare Turner and Driscoll on this topic since they are both plowing that ground. Driscoll talks a lot about forgiveness but doesn’t seem to ask for much. Turner, at least, seems to understand that repentance and forgiveness go together.