Monday, June 30, 2014

something new over at Joyful Exiles

http://joyfulexiles.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/mars-hill-e-mail-dialogue-scott-thomas-joshua-ball.pdf

Correspondence between Scott Thomas and Joshua Ball.  Regular readers of this blog may already be aware of what Wenatchee The Hatchet has written and surmised about the role of Scott Thomas in the termination and trials of Paul Petry and Bent Meyer.  There's little need to add to that. 

The correspondence published in the link above shows, however, that Scott Thomas played a role in alternately seeking to ameliorate or eliminate public expressions of dissent in the 2007 period.  At the time there wasn't anything close to the public controversy or discussion that has erupted around Mars Hill in general and Mark Driscoll in particular as has transpired in the last two years. 

So in a way, for an old-school Mars Hill person, seeing the correspondence is sort of like watching a transitional stage in leadership-member correspondence.  Bear in mind that there was another brief email exchange between Scott Thomas and a member of MH posted to Joyful Exiles, the one in which Thomas stated that a "conciliatory process" had been completed the same week he informed Petry that Petry wouldn't even need to be present for his own trial.

Curiously, just like that earlier email correspondence, Thomas decided to contact Joshua Ball through his acts 29 email.  So in 2007 it looks like an executive elder of MH wasn't just using an A29 email to misinform one member about the nature of what was going on, the executive elder was apparently also using the A29 email as a means through which to tell a member of MH to stop publicly addressing concerns in a blog. 

This raises the distressing possibility that at least one MH executive elder simply used A29 resources as though they were equivalent to being Mars Hill resources.  Matt Chandler may or may not have had a completely comprehensive portrait of the history of A29 and MH when he said it wasn't always clear where one ended and the other began, perhaps?

No comments: