Now here's the blog entry in which Pat K wrote on Feb 4, 2012 about what he heard from a friend on staff at Mars Hill.
http://www.newreformationpress.com/blog/2012/02/04/mars-hill-and-proverbs-1817-in-action/
While being discreet to protect the identities of those involved, and avoiding many of the gory details, my friend laid out enough evidence to satisfy me that the initial accounts given by Andrew and those promoting his story are at best incomplete, and most likely deliberately misleading. Large parts are left out, including the majority of action taken by the church to reconcile him. Also, Andrew’s case involves a confluence of several situations that it appears Mars Hill has properly and thoroughly dealt with. Because the details involve the sin of others that are not publicly known, the church has decided the best course of action is to remain silent to protect those people’s reputation and privacy. They did not divulge the identities of the people involved, or the specific details of each situation to me, but they gave me a rough overview of the pieces missing in various accounts of the incident now in circulation. In light of these facts it is only right that I publicly retract my former comments directed at Mars Hill.
In other words someone anonymously conveyed to Patrick Kyle that Andrew's story was at best incomplete and most likely deliberately misleading. It is also explained that Andrew’s case involves a confluence of several situations. There’s no explanation as to what in the February 4 post, which is understandable. [more after the jump]
There's a problem, of course, in that Andrew's story is conveyed second hand by Matthew Paul Turner so the claim would have to be that the story about Andrew's situation as related by Matthew Paul Turner is incomplete or misleading. But once again, here's Proverbs 18:17 not to the rescue but coming to us as a warning. The warning in the proverb is not that the second person to speak is any more right than the person who first pleads his case.
With that in mind let's consider that by Matthew Paul Turner's account Andrew was informed by a friend inside Mars Hill that a letter was posted to The City.
PR director Justin Dean at Mars Hill confirmed that due to unclear instruction the letter WAS posted on The City but it was not posted with the intent to harm Andrew.
So on Feb 4 Pat K writes he was informed by someone on staff at MH that Andrew's account was, in effect incomplete and probably deliberately misleading. No details were shared in the blog post as to what was considered incomplete or misleading but PR Director Justin Dean confirmed on Feb 10's article by Ruth Graham that Andrew's story was basically accurate. In other words the letter did get posted to The City in such a way that one of Andrew's friend found it and conveyed it to Andrew. Andrew's friend, according to Matthew Paul Turner's account anyway, was the one who discovered the letter had been posted to The City.
Given what Justin Dean mentioned in Ruth Graham’s February 10, 2012 article it would seem like Andrew’s story, if it is “probably deliberately misleading” would be so through omission rather than intentional factual errors. Why? Because if Andrew learned about the escalation letter through a friend who was still at Mars Hill and had access to The City the friend should have been the one to clarify that the letter was not posted to be seen by more than a handful of people. The extent to which Andrew’s account, then, could be construed as inaccurate is the extent to which Andrew’s account hinges on information gained from someone who was a Mars Hill member who had access to The City. Let’s face it, this is possible. The misinformation in Andrew’s account may have started with that anonymous friend within Mars Hill and not with Andrew.
In any event, if Mars Hill wants to make a case that misinformation has gone out about the disciplinary case then when I look at formal statements from Mars Hill’s Justin Dean and at what Matthew Paul Turner actually wrote describing Andrew's case it seems that the misinformation and lack of clarity about Andrew's situation within Matthew Paul Turner's account originated within Mars Hill, not with Andrew, where the disciplinary process and escalation are concerned. My impression, for what little it may be worth, was that Andrew and Matthew Paul Turner in particular wrote in a way to try to preserve the anonymity of parties involved. Whether or not they succeeded is its own question that I don’t intend to address here. My warning is that in a culture as obsessed with social media as Mars Hill you should be careful that in an attempt to keep things “private” you haven’t blogged and tweeted everything in plain sight for anyone to go find.
And what is out there? Well, some of what's out there are comments from advocates for Mars Hill past and present that seem more at liberty to explain things than leadership.
No comments:
Post a Comment