https://www.harvestbiblechapel.org/2019/11/03/november-3-2019-elder-update/
...
On February 12, 2019, James MacDonald’s employment was terminated by our Elder board as our Senior Pastor for not being “above reproach” and for having a “sinful pattern of inappropriate language, anger, and domineering behavior.” Since then, there was a full transition to the new Elder board. The Walk in the Word donor list was also informed about the termination of James’ employment and that Harvest was closing the Walk in the Word website and no longer accepting donations.
You may be wondering why we are coming to you now, months after James’ dismissal. As we spent time with the congregation and visited all of our campuses, it became clear that there was confusion over the previous statements about our former Senior Pastor. We are here today to provide clarity to our church family and also to those who listened to and supported Walk in the Word, a ministry of Harvest Bible Chapel. We understand the seriousness of these spiritual matters and desire to be wise and discerning as we seek the Lord to guide us through the Scriptures.
1 Timothy 5:19-20 says, “Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses. As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear.”
In accordance with this passage, over the past several months we have been investigating the charges against our former Senior Pastor. 1 Timothy 5 is the guiding passage for this circumstance because James was an Elder of Harvest Bible Chapel. We have interviewed and documented first-hand evidence of these accusations seeking to validate or refute them. In this investigation, you can be assured of these three things: (1) We have only considered accusations that included two or three witnesses. In fact, all that is covered in this letter includes many more witnesses than the biblical requisite of two or three. (2) We have only considered evidence from first-hand witnesses. (3) We have listened to these witnesses in groups of two interviewers in order to protect us from an individual opinion swaying the outcome.
These accusations address James’ qualifications to be an Elder or Pastor in the church. The results of this investigation have led us to conclude that James had a substantial pattern of sinful behavior in the following areas:
- Above Reproach (Titus 1:6) – To be above reproach is to have a reputation of being blameless and honorable. The accusations against James are of great quantity and continue to be brought forward. His character should have been such that this magnitude of accusations would not have been believable. But sadly, James’ reputation does not defend his character. Instead, his reputation affirms many of the accusations against him as plausible.
- Respectable (1 Tim. 3:2) – The antithesis of being respectable is to be disruptive. We found that James had a pattern of being disruptive in public and private settings at the expense of other people’s well-being.
- Upright (Titus 1:8) – We found that James failed to meet the standard of dealing with others fairly and honorably. At times, he misrepresented gifts paid for by the church as gifts from him personally.
- Not Arrogant or Violent (Titus 1:7) – James’ behavior and language indicated that he thought of himself more highly than he should as evidenced by his pattern of insulting, belittling, and verbally bullying others.
- Not Quick-Tempered or Quarrelsome (Titus 1:7; 1 Tim. 3:3) –We found James had a pattern of quickly becoming angry, manifesting itself in unmerited force and frequency. James’ behavior was that of a combative person who insisted on his own ways and failed to cultivate peace.
- Not Domineering (1 Peter 5:3) –We found that James had a pattern of improperly exercising positional and spiritual authority over others to his own advantage.
- Not Greedy for Gain or A Lover of Money (Titus 1:7;1 Tim. 3:3) –We found that James made repeated efforts to profit himself beyond what was honorable. There was a pattern of extravagant spending utilizing church resources resulting in personal benefit.
- Disciplined (Titus 1:8) – James failed to keep his emotions under control. The failure is not in the dynamic range of his personality, but in the lack of self-discipline, which an Elder should display in a bridled tongue and sound speech.
- Self-Controlled and Sober-Minded (Titus 1:8; 1 Tim. 3:2) –We found that James had a pattern of acting on sudden impulses with insufficient deference to wise but differing views. In some of the most crucial moments where James needed to be calm and cautiously wise, he was hasty and reckless.
Because of these findings, James was biblically disqualified from the position of Elder, meaning he did not meet the spiritual standards to which a Harvest Bible Chapel Elder is held. The Bible does not teach that disqualification from ministry is permanent; however, with the scope of the damage caused by his behavior, James will not be able to serve again as an Elder or Pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel.
We believe James could be restored to ministry someday, but in order for that day to come, the fruits of repentance must be evident. Based on Harvest Bible Chapel’s interpretation of the scripture, we have not yet seen evidence of this. There is much potential for God to be glorified through him in the coming years, and our hope is to witness that someday.
...[originally published post starts here]
https://www.facebook.com/DrJamesMacDonald/posts/2807916235899479?
...
My Repentance
I was, am, and will remain very sorry for the careless and hurtful words that were illegally recorded and publicized. I immediately sent written apologies where appropriate, grieving what it revealed about the state of my heart at the time, as well as the hurt caused to those who trusted us to be a more consistent example of Christlikeness. I have no excuse and am truly sorry.
...
As part of this, I have come to see my sin of handling pressure in a way that got things done, but neglected the priority of love and the presiding humility of serving others first. Letters have been sent to those the Holy Spirit has brought to mind, owning what is true without reference to what is false. We are looking to the Lord to keep my focus here as long as it takes in hopes of reconciliation with every willing heart.
...
Decisions by the current Elder/staff, along with inaccurate announcements and recent public condemnation, signaled clearly the timing to communicate our message directly. With sadness we accept that no face-to-face confession or truth-advancing interaction will be forthcoming.
...
That first quoted paragraph is striking. "I was, am, and will remain very sorry for the careless and hurtful words that were illegally recorded and publicized." is constructed in such a way that it's possible to misread it as MacDonald being sorry that the things he said were recorded and publicized and that illegally. Was the alleged illegality of the recording and subsequent publication what he is sorry for? Or is it the substance of what he said, the recording and publication of which highlighted that he said what he is now sorry for. Had the publicized words been officially on the record would he be sorry for them? This reads like a James MacDonald moment of being sorry that careless and hurtful words were illegally recorded and publicized more than that he ever said the words.
I saw variations of this kind of thing inside of Mars Hill, something along the lines of "I'm sorry that the words I said upset and offended you." The parallel is inexact, as parallels go, but the opening paragraph would read as a more direct confession if someone was sorry that he said the words, full stop, and didn't immediately proceed to express regret that his words were recorded (allegedly illegally) and publicized.
The second quoted paragraph has a pronoun shift from "I" to "we" that is apparently a reference of some kind to James MacDonald that transforms into the "we" of James and Kathy MacDonald but without necessarily being clear as to why she needed to or felt obliged to be involved in sending letters. Actually, "Letters have been sent to those the Holy Spirit has brought to mind ... " doesn't even specific which of the two, if either of them, sent letters. Since no one's mind is mentioned in particular and the paragraph shifts form "I" to "we" the alluded to sentence floats in a kind of limbo in which there is no subject--surely that collection of words is an exemplar of the passive voice
The third quoted paragraph states that decisions by the current elder/staff ... signaled clearly the etiming to communicate a message directly. "Our" not "my". Does a man like James MacDonald have to write a "My Repentance" as a document that consistently drags his wife into the repentance? One flesh, I suppose, but in the neo-Calvinist Acts 29 Gospel Coalition style orbit that Mark Driscoll used to be part of there was this axiom I heard that "headship means it's your responsibility even if it's not your fault" but that applied to the dudes, not their wives.
MacDonald has a "My Repentance" but it read as if he's dragging his wife into stuff that he seems singularly to have said and done. It also reads as if the public statement from HBC leadership that they regard him as currently disqualified from being in ministry is a public statement that inspired a reaction. If those letters got sent surely someone could have verified that they received letters.
https://julieroys.com/james-macdonald-issues-my-repentance-on-facebook/
https://www.wthrockmorton.com/2019/11/08/james-macdonald-responds-to-disqualification-decision/
Had the penitential psalms been written in comparably thorough-going passive voice expressions of sentiments bereft of subject how many of us would have memorized Psalm 51?
POSTSCRIPT
11-9-2019
Something that could be easy to forget (or not known in 2019) is that when Sutton Turner wrote about his role in Mars Hill Church using Result Source to rig a #1 spot for Real Marriage on the New York Times bestseller list he mentioned that when the thing became known in the news there was a split in the MHC BOAA over whether to scapegoat him alone for the project being taken up.
http://investyourgifts.com/learning-growing-communicating-under-criticism/
Posted by Sutton Turner on April 24, 2015
...
When the criticism of Mars Hill Global began in the Spring of 2014, I wanted to communicate about what happened with Global, its history, the financials, and my mistakes. Unfortunately, I was not permitted to discuss these things just as I was not permitted to discuss the ResultSource situation in the detail that I felt it deserved. There was actually a division on the Board of Advisors and Accountability (BOAA) as some men wanted to put all the blame for both Global and ResultSource on me, but I am thankful for men who did not allow that. [emphasis added]
Eight difficult, grievous months have passed since I resigned; four sad, yet hopeful months have passed since Mars Hill held its last service. I began to work on each of these topics through blog posts several months ago with the wisdom, counsel, prayer, and blessing of many friends who are former elders and staff members at Mars Hill.
After the first blogs were published, many people asked me, “Are you stabbing Pastor Mark, Pastor Dave, Mars Hill and … in the back?”
Since leaving Mars Hill in September, I have been in frequent contact with Pastor Dave Bruskas, Matt Rogers, and other pastors with whom I directly served, board members with whom I served, and many other top leaders with whom I have served shoulder-to-shoulder while at Mars Hill. Many of these men remained at Mars Hill after my resignation and some still faithfully remain at Mars Hill selling assets and closing the organization. Our ongoing contact has been as friends, not in any managerial or oversight context with regards to Mars Hill—I’m thankful that Jesus has allowed our friendships to extend leaps and bounds beyond that. We are family in Christ.
Turner didn't say who among the BOAA wanted to put all of the blame for both Mars Hill Global and ResultSource on Sutton Turner but this is a case in which MacDonald having been on the BOAA at the times means that, though we can't be certain he was on one side or the other we can't be certain he wasn't.
If MacDonald and associates would clarify that Turner's account of a split in the MHC BOAA is accurate or not that could in itself be clarifying. There are a lot of things about the late stages of Mars Hill that have remained a bit opaque. People sometimes raise questions as to what happened to all the real estate, who got the intellectual property, things like that. The aftermath of the late Mars Hill Church has left enough of an effect in the Puget Sound area I sometimes still, five years later, come across people from that scene who have questions and questions that I consider pretty fair questions to ask and get answers to. MacDonald was on the BOAA at the time ResultSource became news and whether he was for or against Turner being designated the sole scapegoat for Mars Hill Global and ResultSource, if it's possible to know that, could be relevant to MacDonald's recent public statement that he's got some flaws but he is, implicitly, someone who should still be in ministry.
If Sutton Turner, who was an executive elder and on the BOAA, was able to say things for the record in 2015 then couldn't other MHC BOAA members say something, too? If not, why not?
No comments:
Post a Comment