Saturday, August 30, 2014

Real Marriage in January 2012 and William Wallace II's "Using Your Penis" from January 2001--on the matter of what Driscoll has insisted certain words in the biblical languages have to mean, specifically "penis" and "vagina"



William Wallace II
 Member   posted 01-09-2001 09:20 AM             
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 That verse in the Song of Songs was translated by some cowards. She likens her husbands penis to hard white ivory. In your NIV the footnote at the botton says it's the "lapis lazuli" which is the penis. The Bible translators are so skiddish they couldn't actually say what the author said. They do the same thing with the woman's body in Song of Songs 7:2 where they say that her belly button is round, red, and moist with a sweet taste. Guess what, it's not her belly button. Very sad, I'd have to say that if you can't just say what the Bible says but need to make it G-rated then you've got a low view of Scripture.
 IP: Logged



Note that as William Wallace II Mark Driscoll declared that "lapis lazuli" was a reference to the penis. For the King James crowd:

His hands are as gold rings set with the beryl: his belly is as bright ivory overlaid with sapphires.

"Saphhires" is pretty common and if Driscoll circa 2001 insisted that lapis lazuli had to be the penis what's with so many translations rendering things with "sapphires"?  As in plural?  Why would translators keep translating the word(s) that Driscoll insists must refer to the "penis" not as not-penis but as a plurality of something else? 

Driscoll does at least refer to the lapis lazuli part, but insisting that the words must refer to the penis introduce a new problem once we've established that Driscoll takes as given this particular gemstone.  Poetic expression always tends to be metaphorical and imprecise ... but  to say that "lapis lazuli" has to refer to the penis means invoking a gemstone with a legendary blue color.  That introduces, for Driscoll's reading, the potential problems both of reducing a plurality to a singularity and to that singularity being ... blue.  Why is that member so thoroughly blue? Bummer for that guy, right?

As to the detail about which Driscoll insists that the navel cannot be the navel but must be the vulva, there's this problem. In his fine commentary on the book of Judges, Barry Webb discusses Judges 9:37 and its unusual Hebrew phrase often rendered "the center of the land".  The Hebrew expression appears only in Judges 9:37 and Ezekiel 38:12. Webb notes that while the LXX and Vulgate rendered the phrase as "the navel of the land" the formulation would be unpersuasive because the Hebrew word for "navel" (cf Ezekiel 16:4, Song of Songs 7:3[2], and Proverbs 3:8) is simply not the same word in the obscure phrase.

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_8326.htm
http://biblehub.com/hebrew/strongs_8270.htm 
To get all KJV to illustrate the point
Proverbs 3:8
It shall be health to thy navel, and marrow to thy bones.

If you want further confirmation of this rendering from Bruce Waltke, see pages 237 and 246 in this book.
http://www.wtsbooks.com/book-of-proverbs-bruce-waltke-9780802825452

Remember, folks, this is a passage Proverbs in which a father addresses a son and the Hebrew word is the one that appears in Song of Songs 7:3, which Driscoll has insisted has to mean "vagina" and not "navel". 

As for Ezekiel 16:4, let's stick with the King James

And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple thee; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all.

The "navel" was not cut? There's no doubt in any variation of this passage that we're reading about a poetic description of Israel in infancy, a baby whose umbilical cord had not yet been cut. 

Which brings us back to ..

Song of Solomon 7:2
Thy navel is like a round goblet, which wanteth not liquor: thy belly is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies

In Real Marriage Driscoll makes a point of saying that this must be the vulva/vagina.  On this particular point William Wallace II in 2001 and Mark Driscoll in 2012 have not budged.

Real Marriage
Mark and Grace Driscoll
Copyright (c) 2012 by On Mission, LLC
Thomas Nelson
ISBN 978-1-4002-0383-3
ISBN 978-1-4041-8352-0 (IE)


pages 171-172
... Sadly it seems those who translated this verse from the original poetic Hebrew into English were more timid than God, choosing the word navel. ... the part of the girl's body mentioned here is therefore more likely to be the vagina or the vulva than the navel. ...

While Driscoll can invoke Dillow and Longman III these are not the only scholars who could field the Hebrew word.  Even Longman III, as cited by Driscoll, suggested that the "navel" could be an allusion to the vulva but not necessarily a literal statement given the Hebrew in the text of Song of Songs 7. Yes this is poetry, but when the Hebrew word that Driscoll and those he invokes insist on "vulva" there is still the problem of Proverbs 3:8, in which a son is advised that heeding wise counsel will be strength to his "navel".  The gymnastics Driscoll has had to go through to insist on a particular anatomical reading of a poetic expression seems to run aground not just on failing to read poetry as poetry but also failing to consider that the Hebrew word he wants so badly to refer to "vulva" is obviously referring to the navel in the other two passages in which this Hebrew word occurs he has to impose his particular meaning on to the text. 

And this would go double for the "wifely striptease" reading, since not all scholars necessarily agree to that.  In an ancient near Eastern society a man seeing a woman's navel would be hot and heavy enough. 

So on the matter of Hebrew words and what they 'have" to mean, Driscoll hasn't made any more compelling a case in the last two years than the case (or rather assertion) he was tending to make thirteen years ago.

If Driscoll's going to insist that the Hebrew word translated "navel" has to be "vulva" or "vagina" and this same Hebrew word appears in Ezekiel 16:4 what got cut?  There's no evidence Jews practiced female as well as male circumcision, is there?  And for Proverbs 3:8, the instructions there are from a father to son and the phrase is still literally rendered by Waltke as "to your navel" and he explains that this was a shorthand, a way in which the single part (navel) was symbolic of the entire body.  It might be likened to working on your "core" in physical conditioning, for instance, but the "navel" is what is referenced and the subject of the instruction is a son. Since Driscoll has insisted for more than a decade on the point about the Hebrew word commonly rendered "navel" not being a navel, the Hebrew word Webb notes appears in Proverbs 3:8 would be ... ?  Well, in 2000 William Wallace II was still writing on "Pussified Nation" ... .

Now, to be fair, there may be serious and significant exegetical cases to be made for these positions Driscoll has taken and Driscoll has been more than able to, if he has wished, to defend them on exegetical grounds ever since he got his Masters in Exegetical Theology.  But by 2012 he was content to reference Dillow and Longman III when, in theory, he'd already earned that degree in exegetical theology where he could have demonstrated his own direct competence in the biblical languages to make the case for his respective interpretations of specific texts.  Why didn't he do that?   After so many years of being willing to make mention of his master's in exegetical theology why are so many of the points Driscoll marshalls in defense of his particular views still so second-hand? 

Real Marriage in January 2012 and William Wallace II's "Using Your Penis" from January 2001--comparing talking points and positions

Earlier this year Wenatchee The Hatchet published not only a majority of "Pussified Nation" but also other materials published by Mark Driscoll under the pen name William Wallace II.  Lost in the public statements made about the pen name are any observations about the substance of what Driscoll wrote under that pen name.  That he expressed regret for having written under the pen name is a given; that he retracted the substance of what he said is open to some interpretation and, unfortunately, no one to the left of an imaginary center seems to have seen fit to actually discuss the substance of what Driscoll wrote.  There has been, to be sure, a lot of discussion about the tone and language of what William Wallace II wrote, but what has not happened is to consider whether there is any continuity between anything Mark Driscoll wrote in 2001 under the pen name William Wallace and later publications.

First, if you haven't read the thread "Using Your Penis"
http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-raw-text-no-pun-intended-of-william.html

Presented in sequence are posts William Wallace II/Mark Driscoll published in that discussion from the old Midrash, starting on January 8, 2001. Comments and questions from other participants have been omitted here for sake of brevity.



 Author  Topic:   Using your penis 
 William Wallace II
 Member   posted 01-08-2001 10:59 PM             
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The first thing to know about your penis is, that despite the way it may seem, it is not your penis. Ultimately, God created you and it is His penis. You are simply borrowing it for a while.


 While His penis is on loan you must admit that it is sort of just hanging out there very lonely as if it needed a home, sort of like a man wandering the streets looking for a house to live in. Knowing that His penis would need a home, God created a woman to be your wife and when you marry her and look down you will notice that your wife is shaped differently than you and makes a very nice home.
 Therefore, if you are single you must remember that your penis is homeless and needs a home. But, though you may believe your hand is shaped like a home, it is not. And, though women other than your wife may look like a home, to rest there would be breaking into another mans home. And, if you look at a man it is quite obvious that what a homeless man does not need is another man without a home. Paul tells us that your penis actually belongs to your wife, and once you are married she will trade you it for her home (I Corinthians 7:4), and every man knows this is a very good trade for him to make.


 With his penis, the man is supposed to please his wife and learn how to be patient, self-controlled and be educated on how to keep his home happy and joyous (I Corinthians 7:3). The man should be aroused by his new home, and his wife should rejoice at seeing his penis rise to greet her (Song of Songs 5:14b).
 [This message has been edited by William Wallace II (edited 01-08-2001).]
 IP: Logged


 William Wallace II
 Member   posted 01-09-2001 09:20 AM             
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 That verse in the Song of Songs was translated by some cowards. She likens her husbands penis to hard white ivory. In your NIV the footnote at the botton says it's the "lapis lazuli" which is the penis. The Bible translators are so skiddish they couldn't actually say what the author said. They do the same thing with the woman's body in Song of Songs 7:2 where they say that her belly button is round, red, and moist with a sweet taste. Guess what, it's not her belly button. Very sad, I'd have to say that if you can't just say what the Bible says but need to make it G-rated then you've got a low view of Scripture.
 IP: Logged


William Wallace II
 Member   posted 01-18-2001 11:13 AM             
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Christian pornography. Christian phone sex. Christian cyber-sex. Christian lap dances. 


 Someone recently asked me about these issues. And, they are quite valid.


 The problem with many unfaithful unmanly unmen is that they have heads filled with desires and dreams, but they marry a Christian women raised on a steady diet of gnosticism (so she hates her body) psychology (so she thinks too much before she climbs into bed) and guilt ridden don't have sex because it's a dirty nasty thing that God hates and makes you a slut youth group propaganda from hell/Family Books.

 So the poor guy is like a starving man who is told he can only eat once ever couple weeks and his restaurant only has one crummy unspiced bland item on the menu and he either eats it or starves to death.

 Bummer for that guy.

 What the guy wants is to see a stripper, a porno, and have some phone and cyber sex. What the guy needs is a good Christian woman. The kind of woman who knows that men like unclothed and sexually aggressive women. Why? Because they are breathing. As long as a man is alive he is ready for sex every minute of every day.

 Ladies, listen closely. The guy will never get the big dreams out of his head. He can either explore them with his wife, become bitter and sexually repressed, or sneak off to Deja Vu or log on to the net and escape in a moment of adventure. Birds fly, ducks float, dogs bark, and men think about sex every minute of every day because they have a magical ability to continually think of two things at one time, one of which is always sex. Any man who denies this is a liar or has broken plumbing.

 So it would behoove a good godly woman to learn how to strip for her husband. Some nice music, a couple of drinks, candlight and a wife who has thrown her youth group devotionals to the wind would be nice. Most women do not do this because they are uncomfortable with their bodies. Know that for a man there are two variables with a woman's body. One, what does she have to work with? Two, how does she use it? Now I will tell you a secret, number two is the most important.


 How about a Christian guy who wants to watch porno? Maybe his wife should get a Polaroid and snap a few shots of her in various states of marital undress and bliss and sneak them into his Bible so that when the guy sits down to eat his lunch at work and read some Scripture he has reasons to praise God. Or, maybe if the lady would plug in a camcorder and secretly film herself showering, undressing, making love to her husband etc. she could give it to him when he's on the road for weeks at a time, or maybe just so the poor guy can see his wife as some undressed passionate goddess. I have yet to find a wife take me up on this be rebuked by her husband.

 And what guy breaking his stones on the job every day wouldn't like a hot phone call from his wife now and then telling him in great detail what awaits him when he gets home. Or how about the occasional instant explicit message from his wife rolling across his screen giving him some reasons to expect that dessert will precede dinner that night.

 Do you know why the adult entertainment industry is raking in billions of dollars? Because people like to have sex and have fun. Does it lead to sin? Yes. Can it lead to worship. Of course. If you resist this message, please stay single until you get your head straightened out. If you are married and fully constipated, bummer for you and your upcoming divorce.

 IP: Logged
 William Wallace II
 Member   posted 01-18-2001 11:27 AM             
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 The guy asked me, so what about when my wife has her cycle, has physical problems, or is recovering from a birth?


 Husbands, you need to talk about this with your wife. The average Christian wife does not know that just because she's on the bench that a game cannot be played.

 Think about it. It is mean and cruel to let a guy run wild three weeks a month, and then set him on the bench for a week.

 I had a wife ask me if it was okay for her to find alternate ways to please her husband when she had her cycle and/or when pregnancy prevented regular intercourse.

 Okay?

 Uh. Duh


 And, he will most appreciate a woman who allows him to explore ALL of her body with her so that he can learn how to please her and cause her to be deeply satisfied and loved with the body God has given him to give to her.


 So, men, you cannot be a coward and a good lover. You cannot lie there and assume that the woman is Being John Malkovich and climbing in your head to read your mind and see your desires. You have to lead her. You need to speak with her lovingly, frankly, and openly. And you need to encourage her to speak to you about her fears and her dreams.

 And, you need to lead her into the land of promise. I know this may take years. You will try positions and parts that don't work well for you. But, if at first you don't succeed...
 IP: Logged


William Wallace II
 Member   posted 01-20-2001 12:22 AM             
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Can a man have healthy, godly, physical lust for his wife. Yes. And he should. His imagination should be filled of redeemed images, images of his wife. And yes, her body. Not just a "chunk of flesh" but her body in passion as a woman devoted to him and entrusting herself to him at her moments of greatest vulnerability.


 A Christian married couple has tremendous freedom to explore all of their sexuality. The problem is that rarely are they encouraged to do so, and consequently one or both of them are filled with curious thoughts that they never pursue because they does not know the freedom that they have in Christ. Does the Spirit give a man strength to not sin. Of course.

 And one of the ways God helps a man not to sin is to give him a wife so that when he wants to see a naked woman, he can look at her. And, when he wants to touch a naked woman, he can touch her. And, if he has a curiousity he can explore it with her. Therefore, it greatly benefits the average Christian man to grow up early, prepare to care for a wife, and take one.

 Let's just be honest. The Christian divorce rate is now as high or higher than unbelievers. Porno has enslaved pretty much every young male in varying degrees. A recent survey also indicated that over half of evangelical pastors have committed adultery. This being so it is therefore not surprising that the pulpits in our day lack much clear and free teaching on sexual matters since so many servants of God are so compromised. And, what young men should not be told is to kill their desire, but to instead channel toward the covenant of marriage with a woman they adore and can trust with their desires.

 A couple may not use all of their freedom, which is fine. But, they may also use all of their freedom. Either way, they need to explore their desires and learn to serve each other so that bitterness does not develop and the enemy gain a foothold. I would also add that if you plan to be with one woman for 60 years you should plan on using your imagination to keep things fresh and growing like all other areas of the marriage.

 You may disagree. You are also single which may explain why. Until you take a wife I would encourage you to dream. The beginning of the Song of Songs is prior to their marriage and includes very graphic details of what they long to explore together in their sexual covenant. Dream about being with a woman and enjoying her, and learning to satisfy her also. When this crosses over into looking at porno or fantasizing about a particular woman it is lust. If it does not cross that line then you are merely renewing your mind to be a husband.

 Lastly, can a man have sinful sex with his wife? If he harms her, if he is unloving, if he is unfaithful, if he is comparing her to other women, if he is degrading of her etc. of course. But, in 60 years of marriage the average couple will have some days where one person just really wants sex and jumps on the other. When you're married, it's a compliment. I know of no wife who doesn't like her husband to call during the day and tell her how he adores her body and can barely contain himself from jumping out of his skin because he wants to come home and explore her and enjoy her. I'd say it's flattering and reassuring.

 With all due respect, your head is tweaked. It is likely either by being raised in the church and having a poor understanding of sexaulity from teaching that had it's goal prevention rather than healthy worship. Or, porno and sinful relationships with women may be to blame. These are the two most frequent culprits these days.

 Do you really think that if your mom slipped a photo of herself in your dad's briefcase before a long road trip that she would be a wicked woman and that him closing his eyes and dreaming about the body God gave her would be inappropriate? Grow up.

 It's a good question and I appreciate you asking it. But, it further proves the entire case I am making here as do most of the posts.
 IP: Logged


Pastor Mark
 Administrator   posted 02-06-2001 05:49 PM          
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chipmunk.
 Lust and wandering outside of marriage is a sin. Lust and passion in a marriage is worship. Why would you distinguish between God and your husband. If you do something nice for your husband (i.e. cook him dinner, run an errand for him, rub his neck) are you serving God or your husband? If you love God and your husband then you are worshipping God AS you serve your husband. You show love for God by loving your neighbor, it is not an either/or but instead a both/and. 


 Lastly, what is wrong with being your husbands sex toy if he truly loves and respects you? If you are married, I would doubt your husband would protest if the situation were reversed. I have yet to hear a Christian husband protest "she just wants sex all the time and can't keep her hands off me - it makes me sick!"


 "The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband...Do not deprive each other but by mutual consent..." - I Corinthians 7:3-5


 Most women struggle with this because:
 1. They have had a bad sexual experience in their past (i.e. molestation, rape, bad relationship etc.).
 2. They were raised Christian and the church theology intended to keep them from having premarital sex and thereby caused them to see their body and sexuality in an evil way.
 3. They have husbands whom they do not trust because of such things as adultery, pornography, abuse, laziness etc. 


 Never forget that God created men and women to be one flesh and brought them together for union and was present at the first sexual act. Sex is never done apart from God and is therefore never a "secular thing." 


 Lastly, the book "Intimate Issues" by Linda Dillow is excellent on this issue for women and I would strongly encourage you to pursue more learning in this area since it will adversely harm your marriage.
 IP: Logged


Now that we've laid the groundwork for what Driscoll wrote as William Wallace II in January 2001, we can proceed to a brief overview of the much-discussed Chapter 10 from Real Marriage, published by Thomas Nelson and authored by Mark and Grace Driscoll, from 2012.  Again, the pertinent question with respect to the writing of William Wallace II (better known as Mark Driscoll) is to find out what level of continuity and discontinuity may exist in the substance of what Driscoll endorses or says.

Real Marriage
Mark and Grace Driscoll
Copyright (c) 2012 by On Mission, LLC
Thomas Nelson
ISBN 978-1-4002-0383-3
ISBN 978-1-4041-8352-0 (IE)

Chapter 10, Can We _____?

Page 172

… Before we answer the most common and controversial questions, a bit of preface will be helpful. If you are older, from a highly conservative religious background, live far away from a major city, do not spend much time on the Internet, or do not have cable television, the odds are that you will want to read this chapter while sitting down, with the medics ready on speed dial.

If you are one of those people who do not know that the world has changed sexually, read this chapter not to argue or fight, but rather to learn about how to be a good missionary in this sexualized culture, able to answer people’s questions without blushing. 

The questions today are different, and if people don’t get answers from pastors and parents, they will find them in dark, depraved places. …

Page 173

… Throughout this book in general, the next few chapters in particular, we are explaining what a married couple may do, not what they must do. The Bible often gives more freedom than our consciences can accept, and we then choose not to use all of our freedoms. This is true of us (Mark and Grace); we do not do everything that is mentioned in this book or the ensuing chapters, although we are free in Christ to do so if our consciences should ever change. Those wanting more detailed analysis on the frequency of various sexual practices will find it in appendix V of the e-book and on our website www.pastormark.tv

These caveats are significant in that what the Driscolls were willing to endorse as permissible if mutually agreed upon by married people should not be construed as a litany of things either of them would necessarily feel comfortable with.

Summary of topics addressed:
Masturbation
Oral sex
Anal sex
Menstrual sex
Role-playing
Sex toys
Birth control
Cosmetic surgery
Cybersex
Sexual medication (i.e. drugs)
Marital sexual assault

This list has been discussed at some length by other writers in the past and the survey of evangelical reactions to this chapter hardly bears repeating. 

However, the substance of what has been discussed in the chapter itself is worthy of review.  T
Masturbation:
he Driscolls wrote in Chapter 10 of Real Marriage that masturbation is not forbidden by the Bible. They quickly dismiss the popular prooftext of Genesis 38:6-10 that refers to Onan by pointing out that the sin for which God killed Onan was the failure to produce offspring to carry on the name of his brother, and that Onan probably withdrew after sex with his sister-in-law to prevent insemination and pregnancy.

Page 182

But the story of Onan says nothing of masturbation. Instead, the story is about a man who died leaving his wife a childless widow. The dead man’s brother was then expected to marry his widowed sister-in-law, have normal sexual relations with her, and enable her to have children. Although Onan was happy to have sex with his sister-in-law,, he would pull out of her to ejaculate on the ground rather than obey God and become a father. His sin was not masturbation but wanting to have sex with a vulnerable sister-in-law without being in any way obligated or committed to her.

For a cross reference to this kind of ancient near Eastern expectation, consult the passages about Levirate marriage consult Deuteronomy 25, although this narrative case of Onan would predate such laws by centuries. 
On to the business at hand, the Driscolls say that there is no prohibition in the Bible against masturbation as such and that it is an act that can be legitimate within marriage depending on a variety of variables. 

Oral sex:

The Driscolls say that it’s okay. The passages cited in Song of Songs are 4:12-5:1 and 7:2. But that these passages refer to oral sex is not entirely clear.  Scholars have indicated that there are references to past sexual activities that are completed but that the poetry is more allusive than specific. 

Anal sex:

The Driscolls state that the Bible does not forbid the act (though if you were to refer to the average Puritian author both anal and oral sex would be considered very bad).  They go so far as to note that “sodomy” is not a word that appears in the Bible but is derived from a passage in Genesis 19.  The word is described as not referring to anal sex between a husband and wife but to homosexual acts.  That others have pointed out that Ezekiel condemned the people of Sodom for being inhospitable can be set aside for some other occasion.  It suffices to say that in Real Marriage both Mark and Grace Driscoll affirm that anal sex between married heterosexuals is legitimate if both agree to it. 
It is here that the Mark Driscoll of 2012 seems more direct about a subject than the Mark Driscoll of 2001.  There's no sign of William Wallace II referring to anal sex at all. For those who read the William Wallace II material above, there's definitely a 2001 reference to ...

Menstrual sex:

Here the Driscolls note that the Old testament had explicit prohibitions and discuss the fairly standard Christian interpretive paradigm of moral, ceremonial and civil law and swiftly designate that a prohibition against sex during menstruation is in the part of the law that no longer applies.  On this particular subject Driscoll 2001 and Driscoll 2012 don't seem hugely different.

After all, in 2001 William Wallace II wrote:
Husbands, you need to talk about this with your wife. The average Christian wife does not know that just because she's on the bench that a game cannot be played.

 Think about it. It is mean and cruel to let a guy run wild three weeks a month, and then set him on the bench for a week.

And yet that prohibition against sex with a menstruating woman was in the Old Testament.  If God punished Israel for failing to observe all of the laws given through Moses would God have been unjust for punishing Israel if the men insisted on having sex with their wives during their periods?  Neither Driscoll as William Wallace II in 2001 nor Driscoll in 2012 seems to have found that a particularly pertinent question.
 
The other discourses on the other kinds of sex that are or are not permitted are not of any particular interest to Wenatchee The Hatchet.   
Overall it doesn't seem that there is exactly a huge amount of difference in substance or even tone between the Mark Driscoll of 2012 in Real Marriage and the Mark Driscoll who wrote as William Wallace II in 2001 on "Using Your Penis".  When some ask why there's any point in bringing back into the public sphere material Mark Driscoll wrote "fourteen years ago" it is because it wasn't all just written in 2000.  "Using Your Penis" was published at the start of 2001, not really fourteen years ago, if we're going to be picky about spans of time.  Another reason is that the substance of what Driscoll was saying as William Wallace II has enough correspondence to material in Real Marriage that it seems worth highlighting.  The change and growth may be that Driscoll more openly endorses the option of married Christians to engage in anal sex, use sex toys, and some role-playing.  He was already addressing the subject of menstrual sex in 2001 and seemed to arrive at the conclusion that it was a solid option more than a decade ago.

Where Driscoll may have changed, as well, is on the matter of photos of naked wives in Bibles.  After all, one of his children is old enough to head off to college.  It seems supremely improbable that sort of Bible bookmark is going to be around now at the Driscoll house.  Even if we suppose, as some have suggested, that what Driscoll wrote fourteen years ago was "in character" where did Driscoll draw upon for this character?  When Driscoll mentioned that physical aggression among brothers is a sign of brotherly love where did he get that idea for William Wallace II, even if we assume it is a character.  If anything "Using Your Penis" suggests that the ease with which Driscoll transitioned "out of character" into Pastor Mark can make it seem to a reader that the alter ego may have had more of Mark Driscoll in him than William Wallace the "first".

What is striking about "Using Your Penis" thirteen years later is that it was begun by William Wallace II who, as the discussion wound down, switched over to writing directly as Pastor Mark while maintaining complete continuity of tone, voice, and substance. 

Dan over at City of God, "The most disturbing quote coming from L'Affair Driscoll"

http://www.cityofgodblog.com/2014/08/the-most-disturbing-quote-coming-from-laffair-driscoll/#sthash.O0mq5ZN6.dpbs

Dan over at City of God hardly blogs compared to his former output but this seems worth linking to and quoting in full.

It’s nothing that Driscoll himself has said, it’s nothing that any of his accusers have said, for me, it’s this:

“But the brashness and the arrogance and the rudeness in personal relationships — which he himself has confessed repeatedly — was obvious to many from the earliest days, and he has definitely now disillusioned quite a lot of people.”

This is a quote that the New York Times collected from none other than Tim Keller. I’m not sure if Keller will expand on this at all, but what he says here is pretty damning for both Mark and for the larger movement of American Calvinism. Arrogance, rudeness - and that it was obvious even from the “earliest days.” I don’t know what Keller means by “earliest days” – I assume that when Mars Hill was nothing but a bible study on the other coast that Keller had no idea about it, but certainly by the mid-2000s, Keller had to have had Driscoll on his radar. Ten years. Given how seriously most in the Reformed community take the pastoral epistles, I want to know how Keller et al squared a brash, arrogant, rude man whose traits were “obvious” with the requirements for church eldership.

This disturbs me because Keller, of all the leaders of the conservative, evangelical Reformed church in the US, is the one for whom I have the greatest respect. He has been successful as a church planter and pastor without seeming to get enmeshed in the scandals of spiritual abuse, sexual abuse, or any kind of financial wrongdoing. It disappoints me though that he is now appearing to admit that those around Driscoll who had the most power to rebuke or blunt him kept their mouths shut because they thought that Driscoll was effective as a communicator.

- See more at: http://www.cityofgodblog.com/2014/08/the-most-disturbing-quote-coming-from-laffair-driscoll/#sthash.O0mq5ZN6.dpuf

Dan puts cards on the table, Keller was the one among conservative evangelical Reformed leaders for him Dan has the greatest respect.  So Dan is disappointed to see Keller appear to admit that those around Mark Driscoll who had the most power to rein him in seem to have kept their mouths shut because Driscoll got results. 

Wenatchee is ambivalent, because in what seem to be many cases of Driscollian name-dropping the name was more important than establishing that any kind of real relationship was in place.  But the point remains, there had to have been a whole lot of people who could have seen and heard what was going on, even first hand, and either didn't perceive or did and looked the other way.

It's not like Matt Chandler have a blurb of praise up front in A Call to Resurgence, for instance. What about Matt Chandler, Eric Mason, Paul Tripp and Matt Chandler for Who Do You Think You Are?
 How about Darrin Patrick giving a blurb for Real Marriage, the book that turned out to have plagiarized the work of Dan Allender in its first printing (er, citation error) and that was bought a place on the NYT bestseller list via a deal between Mars Hill Church and Result Source Inc.? 
The rest of those celebrity author blurbs could have come from people who had no idea how the inner workings of Mars Hill worked.  Tripp's recent and public resignation suggests the possibility that Tripp didn't know what was afoot, but the guys heading Acts 29, how recently did they suddenly get the idea that all was not well in the MH/A29 scene?  Ron Wheeler's recent blog suggests some concerns were raised as far back as a decade ago by no less than the co-founder of Acts 29 Network David Nicholas.  If so, how is it that that document was either not heeded or possibly not even preserved, that letter Nicholas wrote regarding Driscoll's fitness for ministry? 

There's probably no way to know if Darrin Patrick could have known, or even imagined, that the Result Source deal happened when he wrote his blurb for a Driscoll book.  Wenatchee The Hatchet certainly never imagined that was possible, though in 2013 when Wenatchee finally got around to reading Real Marriage the uncited use of Allender's ideas was inescapable.  Patrick can't and shouldn't be held to be blame in light of scandals that only came to light in the years after the book was published, but it's not entirely unfair to ask where all these people who have distanced themselves from Driscoll this year were in 2002-2012?  Some of them didn't even know who Driscoll was yet, perhaps. 

As Bill Kinnon and Dan note in the comments at the City of God post, this does raise some problems with how and why Keller and company, if they knew things were off, didn't bother to say anything of any kind until around Elephant Room 2.

Jon Phelps (founder Full Sail University) in the history of Mars Hill Church in Seattle aka who is Phelps and what is his history of connection to MHC? (updated 08-30-2014 with tag)

Confessions of a Reformission Rev
Mark Driscoll, Zondervan, 2006
ISBN-13:978-0-310-27016-4
ISBN-10:0-310-27016-2
Copyright 2006 by Mark Driscoll

From pages 34-35

Question 9
Do you have the courage to shoot your dogs?

Dogs are idiotic ideas, stinky styles, stupid systems, failed facilities, terrible technologies, loser leaders, and pathetic people. Most churches know who and what their dogs are but simply lack the courage to pull the trigger and shoot their dogs. Therefore it is vital to name with brutal candor the people, programs, structures, and ministry philosophies that are dogs needing to be shot. Be sure to make it count and shoot them only once so that they don't come back and bite you. [endnote 35 here]


Page 202
35. I took the concept of shooting our dogs from a conversation I had with a friend named Jon Phelps, who is the president of DC-3 Entertainment and the founder of Full Sail College. 
Jon Phelps is co-credited with Mark Driscoll for Reverse-Engineering Your Life

Skipping the phrase "shoot your dogs" entirely and moving on to names and references, to get some idea of who Jon Phelps is we may have to go find out what there is available about the two things Driscoll refers to Phelps being president and founder of respectively.

So ... DC-3 Entertainment.

Nathan Burke, who served as executive assistant to Mark Driscoll and as executive elder at Mars Hill Ballard wrote the following in his LinkedIn profile:

http://www.linkedin.com/in/nathanburke

Project Manager

DC3 Entertainment


May 2005April 2006 (1 year) Greater Seattle Area
A start-up entertainment company that ended up morphing into a coffee company: http://www.storyville.com/

Storyville Coffee is currently where Jamie Munson is co-president and has a five percent ownership in the firm.  The variant spellings don't blur the detail that Jon Phelps owns the company.


So what is Full Sail College?  Driscoll's reference was made in an endnote in a book published in 2006.  Well, now it is 2013 and Full Sail College is now  Full Sail University.  For people who kept tabs on the 2012 presidential race some of you may remember that Rachel Maddow discussed Full Sail University in particular and for-profit colleges in general as a talking point for the Romney campaign:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show#48603715

It's a ten-minute clip and for those who don't feel like watching it, well, the short of it is that Maddow notes that students who enrolled in Full Sail University's computer gaming animation program the on-time graduation rate was 14% and the cumulative graduation rate was about 34% and the median debt incurred regardless of the academic outcome was 59k.  Maddow then transitioned into discussing how for-profit colleges have made a point of targeting veterans.  If you're not the sort to watch Maddow clips this summary might not convince you to watch the clip.

According to an article in the Orlando Sentinel, Jon Phelps founded Full Sail in January 1979.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-08-01/business/os-cfb-cover-full-sail-080210-20100801_1_full-sail-university-jon-phelps-rolling-stone

On February 24, 2013 the following video got posted to Youtube by fullsailreviews, which looks like a pretty anti-Full Sail University channel overall.  But independent consultation of real estate listings shows that the Phelps have a lot of money landed in Seattle real estate. 

Mark Driscoll and Jon Phelps are co-creators and owners of the copyright in "Reverse-Engineering Your Life" which appeared in some mens' retreat materials circa 2006 and in a different format at the end of Real Marriage.

But even if we consider the bias against Full Sail University there is an inferential case to be made that the Jon and Esther Phelps own enough real estate in the Puget Sound area to propose the possibilities that 1) they are members of Mars Hill Church or may be present in some capacity and 2) that Phelps has been credited by Mark Driscoll with axioms on leadership and planning that have featured in at least two of Driscoll's books. 

UPDATE/POSTSCRIPT
08-30-2014
In light of the recent announcement, Wenatchee The Hatchet has added new posts with additional history (such as can be found) about Phelps and has added a tag to the posts for easier consultation. 

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/08/throckmorton-reports-jon-phelps-added.html
http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/08/jonjohn-phelps-background-connected-to.html
http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/08/phelpes-proposed-storyville-in-park.html

This post was originally published back in late September 2013 (per the url) but adding a tag seems to have changed the publication date.

Phelpes proposed 2010-2011 Storyville in the Park in Ashland, OR--a promising project that deadlocked over land use impact concerns

One of the things that has been mentioned about the apparently recently announced new addition to the Mars Hill Board of Advisors and Accountability Jon Phelps is he has a longtime association with Mars Hill.  Some reporters and writers also consider him a bit reclusive and elusive.  While he has been described as being one of the biggest donors in the history of Mars Hill, if not "the" biggest financial backer of Mars Hill it's not possible or practical to verify or debunk those kinds of claims.

As with so many things associated with the history of persons significant in the history of Mars Hill, sometimes the only clues are in a history of real estate. 
For those unfamiliar with Phelps, he's more likely to have any national recognition as founder of Full Sail University, per an old 1990 piece about Full SailL

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1990-03-19/business/9003174154_1_full-sail-sail-graduates-phelps

In the Pacific Northwest Phelps is better known for Storyville Coffee.  The Stranger noted a long-time association between Jon Phelps and Mars Hill but unfortunately botched the date of the publication of a Driscoll book.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/coffee-and-mars-hill/Content?oid=17866798

Jon and Esther Phelps are cited as Storyville owners; as Mars Hillers, they merited a thank-you from Driscoll in his 2009 book The Radical Reformission: Reaching Out Without Selling Out.

Actually, the book was published in 2004.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Radical-Reformission-Reaching-without/dp/0310256593

  • Paperback: 208 pages
  • Publisher: Zondervan (September 13, 2004)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0310256593
  • ISBN-13: 978-0310256595

  • Which means that the Phelpses have at least a ten year association of some kind with Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill.  It's a shame Clement or an editor got the publication date of Driscoll's first big book wrong. 

    http://www.amazon.com/Reformission-Reaching-Out-without-Selling/dp/0310515009/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1409432837&sr=1-3&keywords=Reformission+Mark+Driscoll

  • Paperback: 208 pages
  • Publisher: Zondervan; Reprint edition (April 8, 2013)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0310515009
  • ISBN-13: 978-0310515005

  • The book seems to have been redesigned and republished as Reformission in 2013.  Any enterprising readers want to note who owns the copyright for the reprinted book?

    Anyway, moving along back to Jon Phelps

    A little bird sent something to Wenatchee The Hatchet from a
    http://www.mailtribune.com/article/20110305/News/103050309

    But this is just a redistributor of earlier news stories.  But Wenatchee is one of those native Northwesterners who saw immediately that this was coverage from Ashland, OR and it was just a matter of going back to the local paper for more direct coverage.

    The story of the proposed project goes back to 2010.  The owners of Storyville Coffee hoped to set up a lodge-style restaurant

    http://www.dailytidings.com/article/20101023/NEWS02/10230306/0/SEARCH

    a story from 2011, of Ashland, OR official in ethics quandary over accepting a ride on a plane (owned by Phelps)
    March 4, 2011
    by Vicki Aldous

    Ashland Community Development Department Director Bill Molnar accepted a free scenic airplane ride over Ashland and Crater Lake from Mark Knox, a local land use consultant who frequently represents clients with planning applications reviewed by the department, city officials said.The plane was owned by Jon and Esther Phelps. The couple are proposing to build a lodge-style restaurant on Winburn Way, across from Lithia Park. - See more at: http://www.dailytidings.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110304/NEWS02/103040306/-1/rss01#sthash.AHIRNb7J.dpuf

    There were concerns, but Molnar still clearly has his job as Community Development Director of the City of Ashland.  That was just a minor consideration along the way.  There were concerns about whether the free scenic airplane ride created any undue influence.  It looks like it didn't. 

    Per local coverage city restrictions were tighter than state restrictions (for readers who have never lived in Oregon this is a state in which Portland, to this day, has never put fluoride in its municipal water).  Molnar didn't know the plane he was given a ride in was owned by the Phelps when the plane ride was offered. 

    So that issue was cleared up and the real problem that presented itself were matters of land use and zoning restrictions.

    March 4, 2011 (also by Aldous)
    http://www.dailytidings.com/article/20110304/NEWS02/103040305/0/SEARCH
    Mayor John Stromberg had mixed things to say about the Phelps' proposed project.  It had a lot of good points going for it but there were concerns about parking and about land use if the proposed restaurant failed.  For those who may not track those things restaurants are frequently businesses that go out of business within the first three years of opening, give or take regional variation.  The failure rate of a restaurant can be pretty high.  Ergo concerns from the city, per the article, tow hat use would the land be put if the restaurant didn't work?

    Another concern was the impact development would have on parking associated with medical offices.

    March 4, 2011
    http://www.dailytidings.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110304/NEWS02/103040306/-1/rss01


    By May 2011 the project was dead
    http://www.dailytidings.com/article/20110507/NEWS02/105070304/0/SEARCH
    By Vickie Aldous
           Posted May. 7, 2011 @ 2:00 am

              A couple proposing to build a 189-seat restaurant across from Lithia Park has abandoned the idea after the Ashland City Council approved the plan on Wednesday with conditions that included $250,000 in parking impact fees.Jon and Esther Phelps, founders of Seattle-based Storyville Coffee, released a statement on Friday saying they would not build the restaurant.

    Jon and Esther Phelps, founders of Seattle-based Storyville Coffee, released a statement on Friday saying they would not build the restaurant."We are disappointed that the dream of Storyville in the Park has come to an end. We have concluded that the terms and conditions put forth by the Ashland City Council render our project unfeasible," they said in the brief written statement.
    - See more at:
    http://www.dailytidings.com/article/20110507/NEWS02/105070304/0/SEARCH#sthash.RxUtNdqG.dpuf

    The project was approved with certain fees and restrictions, but these were fees and restrictions that the Phelpses.

    For those who don't know why Lithia Park was such a significant concern ...

    http://www.ashland.or.us/Page.asp?NavID=14068
    ...

    The park began with eight acres in 1892 by the Chautauqua Association to bring entertainment and culture to southern Oregon. They built a domed building for their shows, the walls of which now surround the Oregon Shakespeare Festival's Elizabethan Theater.

    Visitors came from miles around over the next thirty summers to participate in the various attractions offered and to camp in what was to become Lithia Park.

    The Oregon Shakespeare Festival began in 1935 with a three-day summer festival of Shakespearean plays under founding director Angus Bowmer.



    Matt B Redmond, "Mark Driscoll, High Profile Pastors and Credibility"

    http://mattbredmond.com/2014/08/30/mark-driscoll-high-profile-pastors-and-credibility/
    ...
    Mars Hill was pointed to for years as a beacon by me and all the high- profile Calvinist leaders involved with The Gospel Coalition and Together for the Gospel. And all of them talked about the value of the institutional church and still do. And now in the wake of increasing scandal, the only thing we have heard is that we should pray for Mark Driscoll and his family.

    That’s it.

    I want you to think about that.

    I am what you would call a conservative evangelical Calvinist. This is my tribe. But all the writings on the importance of the church will be met with skepticism without the acknowledgement of specific abusive systems. In other words, if you’re gonna applaud a leader and his church and point others to him and his ministry when things are fine, you will lose your credibility if your only public reaction is to call for prayer for the leader of the abusive ministry and offer none for the those abused. Because those are the ones who are most likely to question the value of the church in their life.

    I know this because I’ve heard from them. And I’ve tasted it myself.

    The credibility of the church will rise and fall on how it treats the weak and wounded. Mark Driscoll called former friends and former pastors “bodies under the bus” and was hoping for a mountain of them. I know of no high-profile pastor who has publicly called for prayer for those bodies.

    Redmond touches on things said about former friends and former pastors.  There's a lot that could be said about that, actually.  Not necessarily in this post.

    Mars Hill leadership confirms that content from The City has been leaking to "online media", maybe

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2014/08/29/mars-hill-church-leaders-respond-to-the-concerns-and-critical-information-letter/

    You can go read the full statement published by Throckmorton over there.  What is striking about the statement is that between the 9 and the 16 there is a common name.

    The nine

    Pastor Dustin Kensrue – Director of Worship / Worship Pastor at Mars Hill Bellevue
    Pastor Drew Hensley – Lead Pastor at Mars Hill U-District Pastor
    Mark Dunford – Pastor at Mars Hill Portland
    Pastor Ryan Kearns – Director of Community Groups/Pastor at Mars Hill Bellevue
    Pastor Ryan Welsh – Pastor of Theology and Discipleship
    Pastor Adam Ramsey – Director of Student Ministry / Pastor at Mars Hill Bellevue
    Pastor Cliff Ellis – Director of Biblical Living / Pastor at Mars Hill West Seattle
    Pastor Gary Shavey – Pastor of Biblical Living at Mars Hill Bellevue
    Pastor James Rose – Pastor at Mars Hill Ballard

    The sixteen

    Pastor Tim Birdwell
    Pastor Ed Choi (Board of Elders)
    Pastor David Fairchild
    Pastor Aaron Gray (Board of Elders)
    Pastor Bubba Jennings (Board of Elders)
    Pastor Alex Ghioni (Board of Elders)
    Pastor Matthias Haeusel
    Pastor AJ Hamilton (Board of Elders)
    Pastor Scott Harris
    Pastor Drew Hensley
    Pastor Thomas Hurst
    Pastor Donovan Medina
    Pastor Matt Rogers (Board of Elders)
    Pastor Miles Rohde (Board of Elders)
    Pastor Tim Smith (Board of Elders)
    Pastor Matt Wallace
    Pastor Ryan Williams
    Pastor Seth Winterhalter

    So it would appear probable that the content was leaked in a way that suggests the MH account looks solid, that the conversation was not necessarily one that was intended for public consideration but that has been made public.  What is interesting is a set of statements made in the material published by Throckmorton.

    ... Last week, some current elders brought forward their concerns about the integrity of Pastor Sutton Turner and Michael Van Skaik (our BoAA chairman) as well as Pastor Mark Driscoll. There was some discussion of these concerns privately, but then last week these elders brought forward their questions/concerns on our Full Council of Elders group on The City that remain unresolved. Unfortunately, in recent months it has been proven almost everything that goes on that City group is leaked publicly to online media. We simply do not know who is passing these private conversations along to the media, but the fact is, it keeps happening.

    Your elders are deeply grieved over the manner in which this has happened. In particular, we are grieved because 1 Corinthians 6:1–8 gives us a very clear (and even stern) command that when we have grievances against one another, we are to work them out in such a way that non-believers are not invited into the discussion. This passage shows us that even in cases of serious wrong or disagreement, God wants us to exercise appropriate discretion. We are terribly sorry because this is incredibly distracting and harmful to the cause of the gospel. Please forgive us for our division and lack of unity. We know this hurts all of you deeply and we are eagerly working toward the unity that we have in Jesus.

    The pastors have apparently seen fit to simply describe "online media" in a very general way and to refer to any leaks, it seems as including non-believers as "invited into the discussion".  Non-believers can open the Bible and say it's "buy-bull".  Non-believers have already been discussing MH since the dawn of MH.  The Bible is also filled with things such as previously secret correspondence made available for public consideration, most notably David's instructions to Joab to have Uriah killed at the front lines of battle.

    In fact content from The City has been finding its way to "online media" since as far back as the Andrew Lamb disciplinary case was covered by Matthew Paul Turner.  The City has been bleeding information for more than two years now.  Mars Hill leadership has expressed regret that content from the Full Council of Elders group has been hemorrhaging information for a few months but information from The City has been bleeding out on to online media for years.

    Since many leaks in the past from The City were materials that may have only been made available on a campus by campus basis, and were not at the level of the Full Council of Elders, there was some possibility that Mars Hill leadership could try to ferret out the source of the leaks but it was not necessarily a church-wide crisis of information security.  The leaks from the Full Council of Elders group on The City clearly represents such a crisis.  What little has been said in recent news coverage about the dismissal of Mark Dunford invites the question as to what the specific reason for dismissal was "rebellion" or "defiance" would not in itself be much of a reason but is it possible Dunford was dismissed as a suspesected mole?  Would Mars Hill be willing to confirm or disprove this possibility as a matter for the record? Dismissals at Mars Hill might be done "at will" but when the rubber hits the road dismissals and terminations are always with some kind of cause. 

    When James Noriega vanished from eldership at Mars Hill, for instance, it wasn't announced to the public in any way and there wasn't even a note the employment period ended but Wenatchee The Hatchet saw that his name vanished from the list.  On the other hand ... Jamie Munson's name vanished from the public listings and content from The City conveyed to Wenatchee The Hatchet showed that Munson was still listed as "Pastor Jamie Munson' as recently as about June 2014.  On the other hand, it's been conveyed to Wenatchee The Hatchet there's no sign of Jon/John Phelps on The City and yet Mars Hill leadership recently announced that Phelps has been a longtime member.  So, clearly, content leaked from The City can be taken as information that may be of some use but that not even content from within The City itself may necessarily fully indicate what is going on or what may be considered accurate beyond all doubt.

    After all, at one point in 2013 Mark Driscoll conveyed in a letter on The City about Mars Hill "We are not a wealthy church". 

    http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2013/03/apparently-mark-driscoll-now-says-of.html

    There's some room for debate about that.

    Meanwhile, should want an overview of some posts at Wenatchee The Hatchet that have featured content leaked from The City ...












     What is relatively new would be leaks from the level of the Full Council of Elders, not leaks from The City at other levels in the organization. 


























    MH Financial Update, "We have done much this year to prepare for a decline in giving, such as two rounds of staffing reducations ... but now we find ourselves in a tougher financial situation than we expected. The drop in revenue has exceeded what we have been able to cut in expenses"


    For those who can't read the text via the image:

    Financial Update
    We praise Jesus for his grace and faithfulness in caring for Mars Hill Church for 18 years. In January 2014 the church was in the great financial shape. God continued to be faithful, through your gifts, to also help us end the fiscal year strong this past June. Thank you for your support and service, as many have learned about Jesus and countless lives have been changed by Jesus’ work through you.

    It is your continued support that is needed now more than ever. While we were able to end the fiscal year strong, giving and attendance have declined significantly since January. Specifically, we have seen a substantial decrease in tithes and offerings these past two months, due to the increase in negative media attention surrounding our church.

    We have done much this year to prepare for a decline in giving, such as two rounds of staffing reductions and the cancellation of various events and projects, but we now find ourselves in a tougher financial position than we expected. The drop in giving revenue has exceeded what we have been able to cut in expenses. This has required us to now consider further ways we can reduce expenses, such as additional staffing reductions. The reality is that just because we are a church does not mean we can defy economic gravity—we can only operate the ministries and programs our members and attenders provide the resources for. We simply cannot spend money we do not have; this is true for any church.

    Please pray for your church as we make some tough, but needed, financial decisions. If you consider Mars Hill your church home, now is the time to pray, serve, and give. As we head into the Fall we need your support now more than ever, and we are trusting in Jesus to continue his good work through you and Mars Hill Church. [emphasis added]

    As always, you may can make a gift and manage your giving online at marshill.com/give.

    Update on Paul Tripp & The BOAA
    As we have shared before, Paul Tripp recently resigned his membership from our Board of Advisors and Accountability. To the best of our knowledge at the time, this was due to his intent in helping Mars Hill as a paid consultant.

    Paul later released a statement, adding additional comments that he did not believe the structure of the Board that he joined was healthy, and that we should add accountability from local members of the church. Paul’s concerns were not made known to the Board as a whole before he resigned; however, we agree there is wisdom in adding local members to this board and we were already in the process of doing just that.

    We have now become aware of new comments and concerns that Paul Tripp has voiced about Pastor Mark and Pastor Sutton within the last week to a small group of current elders at Mars Hill. These elders then posted these comments as a letter in an unsecure place, and the letter has since been posted online by various critics and media sources.

    Paul Tripp’s comments to our elders were never made directly to the Board of Advisors and Accountability, as we have minutes of these meetings. We are deeply disappointed that Paul did not bring these concerns to our full Board or to the Executive Elders directly.

    The concerns brought forth by these elders and the comments from Paul Tripp have been heard and are being taken seriously. Their letter, as with past letters voicing accusations toward Pastor Mark, will be processed in accordance with our bylaws. This means the accusations will be thoroughly examined and a report issued when the review is complete.

    As for the Board of Advisors and Accountability we are pleased to announce that the vacancies created on the Board were filled with local members of our church who meet the ECFA guidelines for independence. Pastor Matt Rogers is a local Seattle business leader and has been serving as a volunteer elder at Mars Hill Church Bellevue. He will also serve as the Chairman of the Board of Elders which will provide increased accountability in areas of financial responsibility, staff and elder transitions and church culture. The other vacancy on the BOAA has been filled by John Phelps. John is a successful businessman and longtime member of Mars Hill. We are excited for these men to provide local perspective and accountability on our Board.

    The stuff about Tripp and the BoAA is not particularly relevant to comment on for this post because that's already been discussed extensively elsewhere.  It's worth mentioning (again) to verify that Throckmorton has clearly been given content that matches with materials that have been disseminated through The City, and Mars Hill leadership has of late conceded that material has been leaking from The City, sometimes or even often as soon as it appears in certain places. 

    Phelps background connected to Storyville Coffee continued,

    published at
     
    Update on Paul Tripp & The BOAA
    As we have shared before, Paul Tripp recently resigned his membership from our Board of Advisors and Accountability. To the best of our knowledge at the time, this was due to his intent in helping Mars Hill as a paid consultant.
     
    Paul later released a statement, adding additional comments that he did not believe the structure of the Board that he joined was healthy, and that we should add accountability from local members of the church. Paul’s concerns were not made known to the Board as a whole before he resigned; however, we agree there is wisdom in adding local members to this board and we were already in the process of doing just that.
     
    We have now become aware of new comments and concerns that Paul Tripp has voiced about Pastor Mark and Pastor Sutton within the last week to a small group of current elders at Mars Hill. These elders then posted these comments as a letter in an unsecure place, and the letter has since been posted online by various critics and media sources.
     
    Paul Tripp’s comments to our elders were never made directly to the Board of Advisors and Accountability, as we have minutes of these meetings. We are deeply disappointed that Paul did not bring these concerns to our full Board or to the Executive Elders directly.
     
    The concerns brought forth by these elders and the comments from Paul Tripp have been heard and are being taken seriously. Their letter, as with past letters voicing accusations toward Pastor Mark, will be processed in accordance with our bylaws. This means the accusations will be thoroughly examined and a report issued when the review is complete.
     
    As for the Board of Advisors and Accountability we are pleased to announce that the vacancies created on the Board were filled with local members of our church who meet the ECFA guidelines for independence. Pastor Matt Rogers is a local Seattle business leader and has been serving as a volunteer elder at Mars Hill Church Bellevue. He will also serve as the Chairman of the Board of Elders which will provide increased accountability in areas of financial responsibility, staff and elder transitions and church culture. The other vacancy on the BOAA has been filled by John Phelps. John is a successful businessman and longtime member of Mars Hill. We are excited for these men to provide local perspective and accountability on our Board.

    John Phelps may or may not be the same as Jon Phelps, but the Phelps is described as a longtime member of Mars Hill.  Sources for Wenatchee The Hatchet have not been able to verify that Phelps has any account on The City, but a membership contract was an option without City membership for more than half the history of Mars Hill.  It's possible that at one point Phelps had a profile on The City but doesn't have one now.  In any event, since membership at Mars Hill Church so frequently tends to include City membership/access (and the revocation of this privilege was one of the signature disciplinary elements in the Andrew Lamb case) it would be normative to anticipate City access ... but, moving along.

    Thanks to some alert readership, and in light of a report that Jon Phelps has been reportedly added as a member of the Mars Hill Board of Advisors and Accountability, here are a few extra bits of coverage of Storyville Coffee and associated companies.


    http://seattle.eater.com/archives/2013/09/19/storyvilles-flyboy-to-challenge-starbucks.php
    September 19, 2013
    Storyville is run by founder Jon Phelps and his co-presidents Jamie Munson (a youthful former executive pastor of Mars Hill Church, currently a writer and motivational speaker) and Kris Rosentrater, who's been running the day-to-day roasting operation on Bainbridge


    http://theseattlecoffeeproject.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/life-as-story-storyville/
    ... Storyville is the product of Jon Phelps, Jamie Munson, and Kris Rosentrater. The business began as a mail-based bean retailer. The Bainbridge roasting facility offered one signature blend called Prologue with a decaf alternative, appropriately called Epilogue.
    ...
    The plane in that logo has a story as well.  You can see it’s real life inspiration in a photomontage against the wall: a bright shiny Douglas D-3. The Barista tells me the plane actually belongs to owner Jon Phelps.  This machine has shown up in Phelp’s other creative and business pursuits: the name of his musical project, the DC3 Orchestra, and the logo for Full Sail University, which he was founder of.  The Douglas D-3 was an early commercial passenger aircraft, one of the planes that made air travel accessible to the public. A vehicle that allowed people to travel to new places, have new adventures, and create new stories.

    You also get a glimpse of Storyville’s own backstory when walking in to the cafĂ©. On the wall, in large silver letters, is a quote from Gary Phelps, Jon Phelp’s son. Gary has Down’s Syndrome, and when friends discovered they were expecting a Down’s Syndrome baby, they met with the Phelp family to help them understand what to expect. Jon turned the question over to his son, asking him what it was like, having Down’s. Gary thought for a moment then said, “Love everybody, never ever hurt anybody.”

    The DC-3 is to be expected, and while what happened to DC-3 Entertainment (this, perhaps?) is a bit of a mystery perhaps some readers can find things out about that.  saf

    Some local Queen Anne coverage from February 2014
    http://queenannenews55.1upprelaunch.com/main.asp?SectionID=26&SubSectionID=337&ArticleID=35257
    ...
    Not everyone has welcomed Storyville with open arms, though. An October 2013 article in The Stranger proposed the coffee company’s relationship to Mars Hill Church. The church and its head pastor, Mark Driscoll, have long been connected with messages of misogyny and homophobia. Munson was a former executive pastor at Mars Hill, the article states.

    A follow-up article shows a since-removed post on the Mars Hill site that said, “God has used Storyville Coffee to bless Mars Hill Downtown. Since the Downtown campus has been planted, Storyville has donated tens of thousands of dollars worth of coffee, supplies and equipment.”
    Munson denies any connection to Mars Hill and says the shops do not donate anything to the church. Lund has had customers come in and ask about it, but it’s a quick conversation when she explains they have no affiliation, she said.

    “It’s a little unfair,” Munson said about the presumed connection. “But it hasn’t shut us down.”
    Last week, the Queen Anne Moms and Dads group were circulating emails about the possible Mars Hill connection. Moderator Jill Gallagher said she doesn’t believe in what Mars Hill stands for and won’t patronize a company affiliated with them.

    It might, perhaps, have been a little unfair but as Wenatchee The Hatchet documented in two places, there were reasons to believe that in spite of a lack of any formal connections between Storyville and Mars Hill Church Jamie Munson was still listed as a pastor for those who had access to The City.

    See an old post from October 2013
    http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2013/10/where-are-they-now-update-2-jamie.html

    and more recently
    June 9, 2014, replete with a redacted screen capture of what was then Munson's current (to the day) profile on The City

    http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/06/jamie-munsons-role-within-mars-hill.html

    By that time, however, Munson was not at Storyville, was he? Precisely when Munson stepped out would be difficult to pin down but he was gone by then.
    http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/06/jamie-munson-now-lists-himself-as.html

    Rosentrater was gone by then, too. 

    Perhaps more salient, there was another company that may provide a clue as to when the transition happened, perhaps. 

    http://www.bainbridgereview.com/business/134131098.html
    https://opencorporates.com/officers/81635026

    JONATHAN PHELPS
    Company    inactive
    SEATTLE QUEEN ANNE, LLC
    Name
    JONATHAN PHELPS
    Position
    member

    It isn't described as currently inactive but Munson's departure from Storyville was confirmed at least by way of a LinkedIn adjustment.

    http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=603183232
    SEATTLE QUEEN ANNE, LLC
    UBI Number             603183232
    Category               LLC
    Active/Inactive        Active
    State Of Incorporation WA
    WA Filing Date         02/21/2012
    Expiration Date        02/28/2015
    Inactive Date 
    Duration Perpetual

    Agent Name
    CT CORPORATION SYSTEM 
    505 UNION AVE, SE STE120
    OLYMPIA WA 98501 

    Manager
    MUNSON , JAMIE
    9459 COPPERTOP LOOP NE
    SEATTLE , WA 98110 

    Manager
    THOMPSON , BRAD
    9459 COPPERTOP LOOP NE
    SEATTLE , WA 98110 

    Member, Manager
    PHELPS , JONATHAN
    9459 COPPERTOP LOOP NE
    SEATTLE , WA 98110 

    Manager
    ROSENTRATER , KRIS
    9459 COPPERTOP LOOP NE
    SEATTLE , WA 98110 

    POSTSCRIPT
    this was conveyed to Wenatchee The Hatchet just recently
    http://www.northlandchurch.net/blogs/dc3o_leading_worship_at_northland_this_weekend/

    http://www.stumptownblogger.com/2009/06/a-classic-bird-from-ty-rogoway-photography.html

    http://www.dc3orchestra.com/