Saturday, May 09, 2015

a biblical precedent for God releasing someone from a divinely appointed role of service to God's people, 1 Samuel 15 and the rejection of Saul from kingship

Recently Mark Driscoll indicated that God audibly told him and Grace Driscoll they were released from ministry at Mars Hill.  Even if we set aside Mark Driscoll's own 2014 warning against taking any claims to a divine commission at face value, previously quoted and discussed here:

There's still another difficulty that can't be evaded by the Driscolls on the subject of what kind of precedent there is from the biblical texts for God giving someone a role and then saying the person or people are released from it.
The simplest and clearest example of God having appointed someone and released someone from a role leading God's people would be King Saul.  Saul was willing to accept credit for victories won by his son Jonathan but not to truly do what God commanded him to do.  Saul was in many ways still a better king than David and probably a much better father.  But in the Samuel narrative the distinction between David and Saul could be seen as follows:

1 Samuel 15:10-26 NIV
12 Early in the morning Samuel got up and went to meet Saul, but he was told, “Saul has gone to Carmel. There he has set up a monument in his own honor and has turned and gone on down to Gilgal.”
13 When Samuel reached him, Saul said, “The Lord bless you! I have carried out the Lord’s instructions.”
14 But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”
15 Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the Lord your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”
16 “Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the Lord said to me last night.”
“Tell me,” Saul replied.
17 Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The Lord anointed you king over Israel. 18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ 19 Why did you not obey the Lord? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the Lord?”
20 “But I did obey the Lord,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the Lord assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. 21 The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the Lord your God at Gilgal.”
22 But Samuel replied:

“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
    as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
    and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
    and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
    he has rejected you as king.”

24 Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the Lord’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the men and so I gave in to them. 25 Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the Lord.”
26 But Samuel said to him, “I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel!”

Saul used kingship to his benefit rather than to serve the people.  In Jacob Wright's book on David in Judahite memory he points out that the beginning of the disastrous downward spiral for David began when he pursued a war not for the military benefit of Israel but for his own reputation and glory and Wenatchee The Hatchet's willing to piggyback on that observation to point out that when Nathan confronted David it was not merely about the Bathsheba incident but what had become David's attitude about power and entitlement that led to that particular moment with all the others.  Evangelicals tend to read David's sin as sexual immorality (and that's in there, too) but the sharp end of Nathan's criticism of David was ultimately his self-serving abuse of royal power and privilege. 

So even if for the sake of conversation it's granted a voice audibly indicated to the Driscolls they're released from ministry that's still not necessarily a good sign about a basis from which to relaunch a new ministry.  How can we be sure that the release from the last ministry couldn't have been because the Driscolls have rendered themselves unfit to serve in ministry in the wake of the years of the plagiarism and Result Source controversies?  If Mark Driscoll has turned out to be guilty of a domineering and self-serving leadership approach couldn't this be construed as Driscoll, at length, having revealed that as the "king" (i.e. one time legal president) of Mars Hill he behaved less like a David and more like a Saul?

Friday, May 08, 2015

If Driscoll's sharing how a conflict from 8 years ago recently went public that's another nail in the coffin for "we're not entirely sure who they are"
As well, one of the things that has been complex is the fact that a lot of the people that we are dealing with in this season remain anonymous. And so we don't know how to reconcile, or how to work things out with, with people because we're not entirely sure who they are, and so that has, that has made things a little more complex and difficult as well. [emphasis added]
But this week Driscoll talked about how a conflict from 8 years ago was recently made public.  Right, because even though Mark Driscoll said last year "we're not entirely sure who they are" NOW Driscoll can talk about a conflict from 8 years ago as a thing.

So first Justin Dean taunted Rob Smith as having failed to produce a lawsuit for more than a year., and further taunted Smith about a federal tax lien as a reason Smith has no credibility pushing for financial transparency.

Then ...
Posted by on
During the past twelve months, an online petition calling for “greater financial transparency from the leadership of Mars Hill” was started and has since been signed by 507 people. While some of those who have signed the petition may have been donors to Mars Hill Global, the overwhelming majority (98%) of signers never gave to Mars Hill Global.

On April 4, 2014, parties whom were led by a former Mars Hill member sent a legal request for the preservation of documents to Mars Hill Church. This type of request normally proceeds a lawsuit, however a year has passed since Mars Hill received the legal notice. Then in August and again in December, these parties threatened legal action against many of the former MHC leadership, including myself. They charge that former leaders misappropriated funds with regards to Mars Hill Global. There are however a few facts to consider:
4. The leader of this potential legal action has not been a member of Mars Hill Church since 2007. He is a CEO of a non-profit that participates in Africa, and Mars Hill once supported this non-profit. There are now four remaining potential plaintiffs listed in the most recent threat of legal action sent in December 2014.

Okay, Turner can make these points, fair enough.  But by making them this means that it's looking impossible for Mark Driscoll to have been honest with the "we're not entirely sure who they are" statement.  If Justin Dean could taunt Rob Smith this March that it'd been more than a year and no litigation had happened how could Justin Dean have known that if Mark Driscoll was being honest saying "we're not entirely sure who they are"?  And if Sutton Turner was also aware of it and has recently stated that the "leader" of the potential legal action used to be at Mars Hill, and also stated that a preservation of documents letter was sent April 4, 2014 then how on earth could Mark Driscoll have honestly and seriously asserted on July 21, 2014 "We're not entirely sure who they are?" If both Justin Dean and Sutton Turner have been telling the truth about how far back they knew about the litigation situation then it makes it increasingly difficult to take Driscoll as someone who was being honest.

Chris Rosebrough discusses Driscoll's Thrive speech at Fighting for the Faith, a short discourse on things that didn't get woven into the recent Thrive stuff

While Wenatchee The Hatchet has a few things to say those might have to wait.  Short version, consult "The Hardest Part of Ministry" and a transcript of the Gateway speech.

Gateway posts
Dori Monson had some trouble confirming the accuracy of the stone-tossing story, though there seemed to be some report of an incident.

The moved 3 times thing seems to play fast and loose with the history of Driscollian real estate over the last fourteen eyars

Now if the Driscolls dropped the rumored Orange County rental space, and moved out of the house gifted to Driscoll's sister Melanie, and have nestled more permanently into a third house they may have had (possibly since 2013) then, okay, moved three times.  But "for safety issues" seems to beg the question, does a megachurch pastor move to Woodway for "safety issues"?  If they didn't feel safe in Woodway would they want to move to White Center or Lake Forest Park?

Given how much Driscoll's bragged on his media credentials and those of his wife how did an 8-year old kid from this couple fail to grasp what media coverage was?

Not saying the Driscolls as a family don't have reasons they feel they should be scared, just pointing out that for as many years as Driscoll boasted in the media savvy of himself and his wife that a kid failing to grasp even by age 8 that there's choppers in the Pacific Northwest is a stretch.  Reacting as though a news helicopter (by definition a civilian vehicle) could be "bad guys", well, it makes sense if a three year old kid who saw Sam Raimi's Spiderman 2 would worry that Doctor Octopus might hurl the family car out of a parking lot but 8?  Eh ... .

As for some of the stories, they hail from late 2013's "The Hardest Part of Ministry"

Driscoll has never really owned up in the last seven years to what he could own in 2006, that at least one weird incident was catalyzed by his posting as William Wallace III.
William Wallace IIMember
posted 01-06-2001 09:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for William Wallace II   Click Here to Email William Wallace II     Edit/Delete Message

I love to fight. It's good to fight. Fighting is what we used to do before we all became pussified. Fighting is a lost art form. Fighting is cheaper than medication and more effective than counseling. Fighting always wins over compromise. Fighting is what passionate people do instead of killing. So log on, fight away. And if you are reading this and talking to yourself log on you coward and get in the ring.

Radical Reformission
ISBN 0-310-25659-3Mark Driscoll
copyright 2004 by Mars Hill Church
page 14

... So I married Grace, began studying Scripture with the enthusiasm of a glutton at a buffet, and started preparing myself to become a pastor who does not go to jail for doing something stupid. To pay the bills, I edited the opinions section of the campus newspaper, writing inflammatory columns that led to debates, radio interviews, and even a few bomb threats--which was wonderful, because the only thing worse than dying is living a boring life. [emphasis added]

Mark Driscoll,  Zondervan
copyright (c) 2006 by Mark Driscoll
ISBN-13: 978-0-310-27016-4
350-1,000 people

At this time, our church also started an unmoderated discussion board on our website, called Midrash, and it was being inundated with postings by emerging-church type feminists and liberals. I went onto the site and posted as William Wallace II, after the great Scottish man portrayed in the movie Braveheart, and attacked those who were posting. It got insane, and thousands of posts were being made each day until it was discovered that it was me raging like a madman under the guise of a movie character. One guy got so mad that he actually showed up at my house to fight me one night around 3 a.m. [emphasis added]

Driscoll's pleas for sympathy in 2013 neglected to mention that his own incendiary public persona could have had anything at all to do with triggering bad ideas in emotionally unstable people. 

And it's important to correct Driscoll on something about some of the prophets.  Jeremiah was not told by God he had to never marry because of his ministry being life-threatening.  Peter was described as having a wife.  Jeremiah was told to not marry because God said the wrath and judgment coming down on Israel for its wickedness would be unsparing and pervasive.  Don't marry because she'll end up dead, too. 

It's worth pointing out that Driscoll has expressed regret that he posted as William Wallace II sorta ...

but review what he published about the WW2 and Dead Men days in Confessions and God's Work, Our Witness and he doesn't seem all THAT sorry.

For the full text of God's Work, Our Witness ...

While Wenatchee could attempt to bracket out which stories got recycled and in what ways this isn't a blog that's exactly gained a reputation for simplifying things for folks who want it bottom-lined for them. 

Thursday, May 07, 2015

Sutton Turner blogs about Mars Hill Global in "Mars Hill Global – My Heart, My Mistakes, and My Critics", some observations about nose-diving missions giving numbers and a question of whether it's former or current attorneys objecting to Turner's posts

Earlier this week Sutton Turner published a blog post dealing with Mars Hill Global, which later became Mars Hill Go.

Posted by on

*Unfortunately, Mars Hill’s attorneys have requested that I not blog. I have removed some of the financial information as well as other non-financial information in response to their request.

Well, that could use some clearing up. 
Based on the FY reports Mars Hill reported that it gave the following amounts to missions (aka Acts 29) according to fiscal years.  If you don't happen to have all the annual reports Mars Hill released to the public since 2008 then these numbers are things you'll have to go independently verify.

FY2006         $776.059.00
FY2007      $1.110.365.00
FY2008      $1.058,000.00
FY2009      $1,200.000.00
FY2010      $1,378,000.00 (global fund giving was indicated at $1,209,000 for this fiscal year)

For missions and benevolance, the following numbers were reported in the FY2011 annual report
FY2010     $2,060,000.00 (that's obviously a little different in the math)
FY2011     $2,190.000.00

In the Mars Hill Financial Disclosure Package for 2013
Church planting
FY2011     $1,764,973.00
FY2012        $821.182.00

From the MH FY2013 annual report Church Planting and Partnerships list as
FY2012      $821.182.00
FY2013      $233.268.00

Keep in mind these are the publicly disclosed numbers in the annual reports.  It looks like, if anything, that giving was modest but robust for Mars Hill's budget up until the year Turner showed up and then by FY2013 giving to church planting was about a tenth what it was the year Turner arrived. 

And as has been noted here and within a memo published at Warren Throckmorton's blog
16. Having ministries like Film and Theology and Military Missions is not sustainable.
17. Doing anything other than weekly capture and next week playback is not sustainable.
18. Supporting Acts29 and spending $800,000 to $1.2M per year is not sustainable.
19. Doing anything that is not Making Disciples, Training Leaders and Planting Churches is not sustainable.

So based on a leaked memo apparently authored by Sutton Turner he's presented as believing that the giving rate Mars Hill had going on in 2011-early 2012 was in some sense "not sustainable". 

All that said, Turner could well be right that Mars Hill was not particularly interested in international missions, and under Turner's tenure giving to Acts 29 seems to have been dubbed "not sustainable" at the level Mars Hill had been giving previously.  If Turner's not able to disclose the amount Mars Hill gave to Vision Nationals could Vision Nationals independently verify those numbers?  At this point Vision Nationals could be moot for the larger question of Mars Hill Global.  But that's not the next thing we'll be looking at.

Let's return to the asterisk, which led to this:

*Unfortunately, Mars Hill’s attorneys have requested that I not blog. I have removed some of the financial information as well as other non-financial information in response to their request.

The link goes to a statement which says the following:
Posted by on
Learning, Growing, & Communicating Under Criticism
For the past several weeks, I have been planning to discuss the lessons I have learned from events and mistakes at Mars Hill Church on my website. Earlier this week, I wrote three separate blogs regarding the ResultSource decision in 2011 at Mars Hill. Today, I planned to focus on Mars Hill Global. However, last night I received a call to explain that Mars Hill’s former attorneys did not want me to post any more blogs and also to remove what has already been communicated this week. [emphasis added] 

So are the attorneys the former attorneys of Mars Hill as a corporation or the current attorneys of Mars Hill? 

Turner has made comments at Throckmorton's blog recently that may be of interest.
Sutton Turner > Warren Throckmorton  • 11 hours ago 
Mars Hill "Church" does not exist, as a church. It is just some form of a holding company at this point. It is ridiculous not to disclose this information.
Sutton Turner > Warren Throckmorton  • 9 hours ago  

The litigation threat was against me (personally), nothing outside. I honestly don't understand it. As I said before in my blog, if the church was still a church, I would not communicate about anything, however the church is dead and it is time to learn from my mistakes and my sin.

I wanted to publicly apologize to people that had been hurt by my sin and my mistakes, following my 1:1 meetings with people directly that I needed to reconcile with. I thought it was time to communicate the full story - in detail with $ - however "they" got wind (honestly, don't know how) of what I was doing and told me to stop, with a threat. If I get sued for doing what I have done, my wife and I are fine with it.
If the attorney's are former or current attorneys for Mars Hill then do some Christians still feel obliged to roll out 1 Cor 6 and remind everyone that litigation is un-Christian?  After all, it's been a popular text for explaining why Christians should not sue other Christians and if the attorneys are former attorneys for Mars Hill it would seem they have no legal basis from which to say anything on behalf of the corporation.  If they are currently attorneys for Mars Hill then if what Turner's reported is true then is Mars Hill situated to bring litigation against a former executive elder?  If nothing else, Turner's "If I get sued for doing what I have done, my wife and are fine with it" seems clear enough.

Monday, May 04, 2015

2014-2015, a season of more Driscollian flip-flops on the celebrity vs pastor matrix

even though the way he resigned made him seem like the Richard Nixon of 21st century megachurch pastors in America it may be that Driscoll, like Nixon, has some ardent defenders of his reputation.

That Driscoll has in the last ten years transformed into the kind of leader he used to preach against seems so amply attested by his former words and more recent actions a smattering of references may suffice.
1 Timothy
Part 12: 1 Timothy 6:1-10
Pastor Mark Driscoll
March 21, 2004

Here’s the bottom line. They think that godliness is a means to financial gain. You want the sick, hard, cold truth, friends? Every time there’s heresy, error, church splits, divisions, factions, fighting, trace the money, and you’ll find the taproot. It’s always, it’s always, always financial. It’s money. It’s power. It’s control. It’s wealth. It’s affluence. That’s what it is.

These silly, stupid, little denominations, what they do is this. Hank in Dubuque, Iowa, is a union farmer. He goes to his local church, Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, whatever mainline liberal denomination it might be. Hank loves Jesus. Hank gets radically saved. Hank takes 10 percent of all the money from his plumbing job, and he gives it to his church 'cause his pastor there loves Jesus, and he doesn’t know any different. The pastor’s a good guy, and Hank’s a good guy, so Hank gives 10 percent to the church. Hank thinks it’s going to the church.

Well, it doesn’t go to the church. Hank’s 10 percent goes into some fund that’s far away from Hank in some bureaucrat’s office. And that bureaucrat’s paid by Hank to sit around and make decisions and write silly little books that’ll govern Hank’s church. And if Hank doesn’t agree with it, that’s just tough 'cause Hank doesn’t have a Master’s degree. [emphasis added] He only loves Jesus. He’s just a plumber. He should shut up. He’s like Jesus. He’s a blue collar guy, not really fit to do doctrine.

And so this guy over here and his bureaucrat friends who get their salary paid by Hank’s 10 percent and his buddy’s 10 percent from the union hall, they decide that all the sudden Hank’s gonna have a homosexual pastor. All of the sudden, Hank’s not gonna believe that the Bible’s the Word of God 'cause they took a vote.

All of the sudden, they’re gonna send theologians in to do a conference telling Hank that maybe Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. And Hank wonders, “Why do I gotta put up with this? Am I not paying your salary? You don’t seem to love Jesus.”

And then those guys say, “Well, you know what, Hank? We own your building. You and your kids and your grandkids and your friends, you guys worked really hard, and you’ve given sacrificially to pay off that building? Ultimately, Hank, we own your real estate, so Hank, you gotta put up with this, meaning you gotta keep paying our salary to abuse you. And if you try to rebel, we’ll steal the real estate that you paid millions of dollars for, Hank.” That’s how mainline denominations work. You wonder why people don’t leave their denomination? Because the denomination – the liberal ones – own the property. Guys, think about that.

We bought this building a year ago. You guys are giving sacrificially. We’re paying for this building. Can you imagine working very, very, very hard as a church to pay this off and we don’t own it? Some bureaucrat in office somewhere that you never met, that doesn’t know you, that when you get sick won’t be at the hospital laying hands and praying over you, won’t baptize your kids when they get saved, won’t officiate your wedding, won’t sit down and study the Bible with you? A guy you can’t even meet with, you’ll never know, just some guy pushing paperwork somewhere who’s not your pastor, he control your building that you paid for. [emphasis added]

And yet ...
Nevertheless, Clem says, the structure of Mars Hill—which over time consolidated power and financial decisions in the central organization—did play a role. "As the structure became more refined, the driving motive became efficiency and growth, and those two factors began dictating church policy."

 Clem went on to explain further:

"Here's an example of what happens, then: When Driscoll quit preaching at my Ballard campus and went to Bellevue, I immediately lost 1,000 people. At $10 per head, that's $10,000 per Sunday that went out the door. And yet my people who stayed continued to give to the same budget; they actually started to give more.

 "But because my attendance dropped, Central says my budget needs to drop, and that means that I have to fire a youth pastor.
 "People don't want to lose the youth pastor and start asking, 'How much more will it take to keep Mitch?' And I'm saying, 'No matter how much more you give, we can't use a penny. It just goes to Central.' And they start going, 'This is communism!'"

Thus, Mars Hill came to be run by precisely the kind of "God Box" mentality Driscoll warned against a decade earlier.

There may remain those who would say Driscoll needs to be restored?  Restored to what?  Let's bear in mind that by Mark Driscoll's account he never opted to be a member of a church he didn't start himself.
That's one practical thing is, I'd never been a member of a church until I started my own. [emphasis added] So I didn't know a lot about church. But I wanted, I knew I was a big personality and pretty intense so I wanted to be under authority but I made a mistake of--how do I say this carefully?--trying to be under the authority of my elders but the truth is all my elders were new and young and green and they would want to help but they really didn't know what they were talking about.

And so what I should have had was a team of pastors outside of the church who were older and more seasoned that could, you know, help Grace and I put life together.

Then again, he did, but he managed to omit mention of them over the years. And if of late Driscoll claims he was audibly told by God he's released from ministry, well, bear in mind something Driscoll said about the problem with guys who talk like that.
Pastor Mark Driscoll
ACTS (5:12-42)
May 04, 2014
So I want to be careful with this because this can be an opportunity for spiritual abuse. Because sometimes people say, “God told me.” Well, we’ll see, OK? You can’t just pull out the “God told me” card. [emphasis added] Ladies, let’s say you meet a guy and the guy says, “God told me to marry you.” “Interesting, he didn’t tell me or my dad, you know, so I don’t have to just assume that because you say the Lord says that the Lord in fact has spoken.”

You need to be very careful. Somebody comes along, “God told me to plant a church.” Let’s check that. All right, you can’t—I mean, 1 Corinthians 14 is clear. If you think you got a word from the Lord, you’ve got to check it by the leaders. So what we’re looking for, if you believe God has told you something, especially to do something that is difficult like this, we’re looking for a godly person—Peter’s a godly person. In godly community—it says he’s with the apostles, they’re all agreed. Under godly authority—they all agree on this. With a godly motive—to talk about Jesus. Doing a godly thing—wanting to minister to people. In a godly way—by being open in public and not hiding anything. So if you believe the Lord has told you something, he may have, but I would ask, “Are you a godly person in godly community under godly authority with a godly motive doing a godly thing in a godly way?” ... [emphasis added]
The likelihood that we'll ever see a report, if the BoE from last year was even really working on one (which we can't be sure about), seems remote.  And while last year it was said of Driscoll he was advised by godly counsel to resign the new iteration seems to be a divine mandate that he quit.

Back in 2014 Driscoll issued a statement in which he said the following:

From a 2014 missive, Driscoll wrote the following:
While I’m still young, I suspect when I’m old I’ll be known for many things—some good, and some not so good. But I hope that the longer God leaves me on this earth, the more I’ll be known for one thing—that I loved Jesus and His Church, the Church He promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against. I may be an author, a speaker, and a thought-provoker; but in the deepest recesses of my heart, I’m a local church pastor, and that’s what I want to give the rest of my life for. [emphasis added]

To date he's failed to provide a very compelling explanation for why someone who in the deepest recesses of his heart considered himself a local church pastor let his leadership team sign off on Result Source.  Even Sutton Turner has sounded off in the last month about how ill-advised and bad it was. 

Yet before the year 2014 was out he quit.  Even if we'd grant for sake of conversation God said something to the effect Mark Driscoll was released from the ministerial calling he'd spent the last twenty years affirming really happened, the biblical textual precedent for any kind of calling being rescinded tends to crop up more in the case of a King Saul than a King David.  Since Driscoll's invoked the "struck shepherd" meme that might thematically link.

From a March 2014 missive, Driscoll wrote the following:
in recent years, some have used the language of “celebrity pastor” to describe me and some other Christian leaders. In my experience, celebrity pastors eventually get enough speaking and writing opportunities outside the church that their focus on the church is compromised, until eventually they decide to leave and go do other things. Without judging any of those who have done this, let me be clear that my desires are exactly the opposite. I want to be under pastoral authority, in community, and a Bible-teaching pastor who grows as a loving spiritual father at home and in our church home for years to come. I don’t see how I can be both a celebrity and a pastor, and so I am happy to give up the former so that I can focus on the latter.

So who is Driscoll submitted to these days?  Under whose pastoral authority does Mark Driscoll serve in community?  Driscoll wrote that he didn't see how he could be both a celebrity and a pastor, so he wrote he was happy to give up the former so he could focus on the latter.  And before the year was out he quit being the latter and of late would suggest this was at a divine prompting?  Driscoll warned against assuming guys were telling the truth by invoking "Jesus told me ... ." 

That Driscoll resigned his pastoral role the way he did yet has appeared at conferences invites the question of whether in the end he is happier to be a celebrity than he is to be a pastor.  If he's still a charismatic and still aims to re:launch and re:brand himself then the seatbelt may be officially off. 

some initial thoughts on that Thrive thing, revisiting some previously visited content

Miller's summary of things indicated that it seems Driscoll recapitulated a mixture of things from "The Hardest Part of Ministry" and his Gateway Conference appearance and the stuff he said there.  When Driscoll said the family had moved three times over safety issues he didn't specify what "season" meant and if "season" meant a decade then, sure, they moved a few times.  The story about the chopper skimmed over how many military bases are in the area.  Choppers are not uncommon and the idea that an eight year old whose father boasted that he worked as a professional journalist and that his wife had a degree in PR could imagine a news chopper constituted "bad guys" is hard to take at face value.  The Driscoll kids were up on stage for a photo op in August 2014, weren't they?  Did the kids get an explanation of what having their mugs put on Instagram entailed?  In any case ...

It seems worth linking to the tagged series of Mark Driscoll's history of sharing woe and how it shifted over the 2007-2014 from "I was close to death" to "my family has been in peril".  Wenatchee The Hatchet has at times commented about Driscoll using his family as a kind of social media meatshield
But the most glaring omission from Driscoll's stories about the troubles his family went through was that his own public stunts can't be discounted as having a role in what happened.  Anyone who saw how Mark Driscoll reacted to people as William Wallace II would not be entirely surprised if emotionally unstable young men who were eager to prove themselves would react to WW2 with the understanding that it wasn't "just" some kind of joke.

After all ...
William Wallace II
Member    posted 01-06-2001 09:01 PM    

Click Here to See the Profile for William Wallace II  
Click Here to Email William Wallace II    
Edit/Delete Message

I love to fight. It's good to fight. Fighting is what we used to do before we all became pussified. Fighting is a lost art form. Fighting is cheaper than medication and more effective than counseling. Fighting always wins over compromise. Fighting is what passionate people do instead of killing. So log on, fight away. And if you are reading this and talking to yourself log on you coward and get in the ring.
It's worth repeating that Driscoll has expressed regret that he sinned and cussed a lot but he has never, not even once, retracted the substance of the things he said as William Wallace II.  Moreover, continuing more finely crafted iterations of the polemic was what he went on to do over the next decade. 

For Driscoll to lament that crazy people have threatened his family without conceding that his antics as William Wallace II "may" have been a variable seems problematic.  It's like a kid complaining his brother spit on him while neglecting to make mention of the funny faces he was making to make fun of his brother.  Driscoll's plea for pity through his family in 2013 without a word about his own provocations was a tipping point for Wenatchee The Hatchet, had Driscoll not done that Wenatchee The Hatchet would not have felt it was necessary to provide a more complete historic record of Driscoll's public ministry activity by publishing "Pussified Nation" back on July 27, 2014.

Driscoll's story about people throwing rocks over the fence at the house skimmed over where the house was a bit.  Driscoll has indicated, it seems "the media" published the address as a news story.  To date there has never been any clarification who published the address and what "media" means.  Driscoll spent years dismissing bloggers so unless Driscoll's singing a different tune about bloggers now they don't count.

What's worth mentioning about that house is that Driscoll bought it during a season of layoffs that were doubled up with asks for more sacrificial giving.
If you want to review all that in the tagged posts, there you go.  But the salient post regarding Bruskas and the purchase is here:

Even though the public narrative featured Driscoll saying of FY2012 it was the best year ever

That seemed to be after the fact.  During that fiscal year it was one of the more difficult seasons and Bruskas' correspondence published by Throckmorton indicated there were some heavy layoffs.  A memo drafted, it seems, by Sutton Turner in March 2012 described Mars Hill as teetering on the brink of financial ruin.  It would seem that the more has been divulged about the inner workings of the organization the greater the chasm between the 2012 public presentation and the internal financial and political realities of the organization seems to have been.

One of the more biting ironies about Mark Driscoll's lament that his address was published by "the media" is that as a property owner the address was a matter of public record through county listings anyway.  It was simply a matter of finding it and it only took about eight seconds to find the address.  Finding the details about the instrument of purchase took a bit more time, but the point here is that having spent years telling guys to buy real estate it's a bit daft for Driscoll to lament that "the media" published his address.

Does Mark Driscoll think that an address being publicly accessible on county records is a problem?  Why not address this year's earlier little controversy involving an email list Craig Gross said he bought that included the names and email contacts of people who at one time had been at Mars Hill?  IF Driscoll wants sympathy for a set of stories he seems to have recycled from earlier accounts, why not have at least a little sympathy for the members who gave years and dollars to Mars Hill only to discover, this year, that somebody who had or was given access to their contact information seems, according to Justin Dean's account, given to some unspecified person(s).  Somehow the list ended up for sale and when a refund or refunds were given Mars Hill's leadership culture by way of Justin Dean, basically gave away contact names and emails.  It can look as though the leadership culture of Mars Hill could be the pot calling the kettle black there, maybe?  Why would Driscoll not think of the problem of member names and info being SOLD?  At least the press has a constitutionally protected right to disclose information it considers important to the public good.  What's the excuse for whoever sold and then refunded that list?

That was discussed somewhat over here:
Driscoll may seem to feel it's a bigger crime against him that anyone in the media disclosed an

Sunday, May 03, 2015

Throckmorton: audio of Driscoll speech at 2015 Thrive Leadership conference

Wenatchee The Hatchet already spent some of this weekend listening to robots giving flowery speeches about the state of the human condition ... . 

Even a surprisingly short 34 minutes (for Driscoll that's anywhere between half to a third the usual running time range) can wait. 

Still, "recently went public"?  2012 was recent?  No, actually, the conflict was made public back in 2007 when The Stranger first reported on it, so if Driscoll's attempted to describe a conflict that happened 8 years ago as having gone public ...

The "pile of dead bodies behind the Mars Hill bus" speech was given in 2007 and the chuckle in Driscoll's voice at the time did not suggest he even considered there to be a conflict at that point. 

Maybe we'll get to the audio later.