Mars Hill camps out on protecting victims. It is important to protect victims but it is also important to define victimization from a criminal/legal standpoint as well as a spiritual one, something Mars Hill has not established. If what Andrew did was criminal he would have been prosecuted by now, wouldn’t he? Not everything that is immoral is considered criminal and vice versa. Mars Hill has not defined anything about victims, even victims of sexual abuse, as such. The rights of the accused are not eliminated by camping out on the rights of the accuser, are they? Was Andrew given an opportunity to appeal a disciplinary decision? This seems unlikely given the precedent and explanations provided by Mars Hill about church discipline so far. [more after the jump]
Particularly unavailable to us is information as to who the accuser(s) were in Andrew’s case and he understandably is not interested in being public with that. As psychologist Roy Baumeister has noted in his writing on perpetrator and victim narratives we will always have a conundrum because both victims as well as perpetrators have an incentive to lie, distort or omit information in order to make themselves look better. This means, generally, that we can’t be sure, we can’t assume anyone is telling the whole, unbiased truth in cases like these. Andrew’s lack of recollection about signing his membership covenant does not speak particularly well of him, but neither does the lack of clarity of competence displayed by Mars Hill. People have wanted to look for good guys and bad guys in this story and it is not really clear that those categories really exist here the more a person investigates the claims and counterclaims of the situation.
As I wrote earlier Mars Hill has taken great pride in its social media savvy and yet this social media savvy and pride in technology may be a significant weakness. What if keeping privacy ultimately proves impossible because a community and its individuals have thoughtlessly blogged and tweeted and Facebooked it all away? How much has been given away? Well, if you haven’t figured it out on your own I’m not that interested in spilling the beans. My sincere warning to Mars Hill as a whole is you have no idea how much stuff is out there that a few people can put together to make what is already public more public by connecting dots you may think no one has connected. Let me assure you it is not so.
In fact I’ve taken it on myself to contact people through mutual associates to help ensure their privacy better by warning them just how much material is publicly accessible. Has Mars Hill taken any such steps? If you really want to protect victims in specific cases you may need to be more alert. You may also need to be aware that once things are tweeted and blogged and Facebooked they're out there. Mars Hill, you may have already given up any shred of privacy over this Andrew situation and related cases as a church culture without even knowing it. I don’t write this to shame any of you but to point out what probably anyone could point out. If you want privacy in a time of crisis you should think about what privacy mean in a time of rest.
Naturally, we’ve been following these stories closely, and a handful of people have stepped out to discuss their experiences. Quoted in various sources are people who’ve given their stories anonymously. Since we don’t know who they are, we’d love to meet with them and serve them and begin a process of reconciliation. So please, if you’re reading this, do let us know who you are so we can do all we can to love you by sitting down to meet, listen, and serve. For the two mentioned in the KOMO story, we’d love to meet with you also to do the same.
And for those who used to be Mars Hill Church members seeking to resolve something from the past, including the majority in the news stories that have not been at our church in roughly six years, the best way to do that is not through the media but rather by meeting with a Mars Hill pastor. Our desire is for reconciliation between us and you. This won’t mean we’ll always see eye to eye, but can and should talk face to face in a spirit of humility and grace. Please fill out this brief form so we can begin this process. We offer this all as a means of opening up a line of reconciliation in the hopes of making it as easy for you as possible.
I am actually for private meetings between pastors and former members. I did that myself years ago. Unfortunately I realize that I warned Mars Hill four years ago that if they didn’t come up with a clearer, more concise and competent approach to disciplinary precedents and procedures there might come a time when a case would be perceived as ad hoc, arbitrary, or punitive and get leaked to the public. Having seen how this seems to be exactly what has transpired in more than one case I am afraid I have to say that though Mars Hill’s offer may be completely sincerely there are reasons former members may understandably be cautious about accepting the offer. If I met with people now it would be as someone who left on good terms and gave some warnings that, apparently, were not heeded. Meeting up to say "I told you so" is obviously not what Mars Hill needs so I personally won't be seeking to meet with former pastors.
But think about this, if I left under no church discipline and on mutually affectionate terms and my warnings and concerns still fell on deaf ears how much more would former members who left under discipline or were made the subjects of shunning campaigns feel even less inspired to accept the offer? How much less might they think they would be taken seriouisly by Mars Hill leaders? I didn’t seek to lead any ministry. I didn’t nominate myself to be an elder. I was recruited to nearly every ministry I served in and was well regarded by people as high up in leadership as even Mark himself (which was, I might add, years ago).
In other words I'm not some disgruntled member who had a history of being "divisive" or seeking leadership positions or anything like that, which has been a common way of Mars Hill advocates to dismiss former members. I could be cold-blooded in debate and not very nice to people and no less than co-founding elder Leif confronted me and privately spoke to me about this problem I've had. I'm not going to pretend that when I left on good terms I was not very troubled by a growing awareness of things in my life I need to change.
In other words I'm not some disgruntled member who had a history of being "divisive" or seeking leadership positions or anything like that, which has been a common way of Mars Hill advocates to dismiss former members. I could be cold-blooded in debate and not very nice to people and no less than co-founding elder Leif confronted me and privately spoke to me about this problem I've had. I'm not going to pretend that when I left on good terms I was not very troubled by a growing awareness of things in my life I need to change.
Yet that the Andrew situation came up at all troubled me because it told me that the things I was worried were going to keep being risks had not been dealt with, at least not well enough to have kept things from getting leaked to the public. It’s made me sad to see that these things have happened despite my cautions, which I trust could not have been the only warnings. I knew I had problems but I left in good enough standing that I had hoped that my concerns would have been given some attention. It seems as though they may have fallen on ultimately deaf ears.
No comments:
Post a Comment