Longtime readers of Wenatchee The Hatchet will
understand that one of the things I basically refuse to do is to present things
as simple when I don’t think they are simple.
No one is likely to truly learn anything if they are told the “bottom
line” version without needed history and nuance. I may be nuanced to a fault. A friend of mine once told me that I can see
more and finer shades of gray than just about anyone he has ever known in his
life. That means, perhaps, I write extravagantly
long posts about things that test the patience of internet-era readers. This is going to be another one of those
kinds of posts. Wenatchee The Hatchet as
a general rule refuses to write for the TL:DR sort of reader. If you're up for it, prepare to read about 8,100 words.
It was recently brought to my attention
that Mark Driscoll talked about church governance at a conference
recently. We’ll get to that. But there’s something else that caught my
eye. Warren Throckmorton and Justin Dean
had some exchanges on Twitter. I believe
that that is the topic we need to look at first because Dean shared some things
that I believe may illuminate the history of the late Mars Hill in ways that
have not come to light before.
So we turn to the recent exchanges on Twitter.
archive.today webpage capture
Saved from
no other snapshots from this url
22 Jun 2019 20:30:51 UTC
Did you see a final report which said he was qualified to preach?
He was rebuked as being in persistent sin and was supposed to enter a
restoration plan but resigned before he did so.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Justin Dean @justinjdean
Replying to @wthrockmorton @dawirice and 4 others
Yes the report said he was not disqualified as an elder but was
found to have a pattern of arrogance so they wanted him to step down from
management, get help for the arrogance, but still be the preaching pastor...
then the 15 lead pastors would be in charge.
1:25 PM - 22 Jun 2019
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Replying to @wthrockmorton @dawirice and 4
others
Yes he said he and Grace prayed in
separate rooms and both felt God wanted him to quit so he did. He was never
found unqualified. They wanted him to continue preaching, but not lead the church
or staff. Had he stayed he would have been removed from managing.
1:16 PM - 22 Jun 2019
Yes the report said he was not
disqualified as an elder but was found to have a pattern of arrogance so they
wanted him to step down from management, get help for the arrogance, but still
be the preaching pastor... then the 15 lead pastors would be in charge.
1:25 PM - 22 Jun 2019
Now for those who don’t know that Justin Dean wrote
and published a book about public relations and media relations in contemporary
church life PR Matters is on the
market and I wrote a review of the book.
There are also two preludes to the review which are important for
getting a clearer historical sense of how many public relations and media
crises Mars Hill PR was dealing with from roughly late 2011 up until the end of
Mars Hill Church.
One of the things that has to be kept in mind is
that Mark Driscoll resigned rather than enter into a restoration plan. This is still a bit mysterious years later,
because while Justin Dean recounted that Mark and Grace Driscoll prayed in separate
rooms and both felt God had released them from ministry, we’ll see that Mark
Driscoll recounted that a … or the board governing Mars Hill proposed a
restoration plan and that Mark Driscoll agreed to it. If when preaching to others Mark Driscoll
made a point of saying that you can’t just say “God told me” and expect people
to find it binding Driscoll seems to have felt that he could do that for
himself.
But in order to get a general sense of what happened
let’s go back through the six accounts of how and why Mark Driscoll resigned
from membership and leadership at Mars Hill Church in October 2014.
1. THE RESIGNATION LETTER ITSELF, ON
GODLY MEN AND WOMEN ACROSS THE COUNTRY SOUGHT FOR COUNSEL
http://www.religionnews.com/?p=109053
October 14, 2014Michael Van Skaik
Chairman, Board of Advisors and Accountability
Mars Hill Church
Dear Michael:
...
Last week our Board of Overseers met for an
extended period of time with Grace and me, thereby concluding the formal review
of charges against me.
...That is why, after seeking the face and
will of God, and seeking godly counsel from men and women across the country,
we have concluded it would be best for the health of our family, and for the
Mars Hill family, that we step aside from further ministry at the church we
helped launch in 1996. [emphasis added] I will gladly work
with you in the coming days on any details related to our separation.
The initial resignation letter featured Mark Driscoll explaining that the
investigation that was going on did not feature any allegations of criminality
or immorality or disqualifying sin.
The resignation letter itself stated that the Driscolls sought godly counsel
from men and women across the country and concluded it would be best for the
family and Mars Hill that Mark and Grace Driscoll step aside from further
ministry at the church they helped launch in 1996. In this earliest account
that’s all that’s said. There’s no mention of God being described as releasing
Mark (or Grace) Driscoll from ministry at Mars Hill. The account was that the Driscolls sought the
face and will of God, and sought godly counsel from men and women across the
country, and concluded that it would be best for the health of their family and
for the health of the Mars Hill Church family to step aside from further ministry
there.
Now Justin
Dean’s account was that Mars Hill leadership wanted Mark Driscoll to keep
preaching and teaching but to step away from management of the church. Since Driscoll was the president on the basis
of the governing documents that was perhaps a lot to ask but, as we’ll see,
Driscoll would later say he agreed to that.
Okay, that was the account available on October 14, 2014. A day
later the Mars Hill Board of Overseers published the following:
2. THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS ACCOUNT
On October 15, 2014 ... Mars Hill issued the following statement.
http://web.archive.org/web/20141016105922/https://marshill.com/2014/10/15/pastor-mark-driscolls-resignation
Pastor Mark Driscoll's Resignation
By: Mars Hill Church
Posted: Oct 15, 2014
On Tuesday, October 14, Pastor Mark
Driscoll submitted his resignation as an elder and lead pastor of Mars Hill
Church. The Board of Overseers has accepted that resignation [emphasis
added] and is moving forward with
planning for pastoral transition, recognizing the challenge of such a task in a
church that has only known one pastor since its founding. We ask for prayer for
the journey ahead.
As is well known, inside and outside of Mars
Hill, Pastor Mark has been on a leave of absence for nearly two months while a
group of elders investigated a series of formal charges brought against him.
This investigation had only recently been concluded, following some 1,000 hours
of research, interviewing more than 50 people and preparing 200 pages of
information. This process was conducted in accordance with our church Bylaws
and with Pastor Mark’s support and cooperation.
While a group of seven elders plus one member
of the Board of Overseers was charged with conducting this investigation, the
full Board of Overseers is charged with reaching any conclusions and issuing
any findings.
...
Finally, Mark Driscoll was not asked to
resign; indeed, we were surprised to receive his resignation letter. [emphasis added] While he can speak to
his decision as he chooses, we would point to just two things from his letter.
He noted that he had concluded “it would be best for the health of our family,
and for the Mars Hill family, that we step aside from further ministry at the
church.” Secondly, he specifically wanted to convey “to the wonderful members
of the Mars Hill family, how deeply my family and I love them, thank them, and
point them to their Senior Pastor, Jesus Christ, who has always been only good
to us.”
Mars Hill Board of Overseers
Michael Van Skaik
Larry Osborne
Jon Phelps
Matt Rogers
So the resignation was a surprise to the board. Whoever counseled Mark
and Grace Driscoll as alluded to in the resignation letter of October 14, 2014 were,
those godly men and women were apparently not on the BoAA or the BoO or the
BoE. In fact, an announcement issued at Mars Hill October 19 seems to
indicate that by resigning Mark Driscoll chose to not participate in the
restoration plan that was considered necessary for his return to formal
ministry at Mars Hill.
http://wp.production.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/files/2014/10/Alex-Ghioni-Announcement.m4a
starting about 3:45 (for now the audio works, surprisingly)
The investigation of formal charges against
Mark Driscoll has revealed patterns of persistent sin in the three areas
disclosed in the previous letter by the Board of Overseers. In I Tim 5:20, it
requires that an elder be rebuked for persistent sin. Our intention was to do
this while providing a plan for his eventual restoration to leadership. The
Board of Elders in agreement with the Board of Overseers are grieved, deeply
grieved, that any process like that was lost to us when Mark Driscoll resigned
in position and left the church. [emphasis added] Now is the time to move on and consider what God is calling
us to next as a church as we participate in Jesus’ mission to make disciples in
His name. Today begins a new chapter in the history of our church which has
proceeded in one direction under one leadership for many years now, but I want
you to understand this, God is our Father. That does not change. Jesus is the
chief shepherd of the church and that has not changed.
The phrase “restoration to leadership” could have been
construed as management of Mars Hill Church as a corporation with 501(c)3
status, possibly, or it could have been understood as a reference to preaching
and teaching. Whatever the sense of “restoration”
was, the main statement was that by choosing to resign rather than agree to the
restoration plan the possibility of restoration was made moot.
since
Patheos dropped Throckmorton’s blog if you want to see the statement you should
be able to find it in the first minute of footage here:
Transcript of Robert Morris and Mark Driscoll
from the Gateway Leadership + Worship Conference
on the evening of Monday, October 20, 2014, as broadcast live via DayStar
Television:
Robert Morris: [0:29] Uh, it was publicized that we cancelled him;
that’s not true, we did not cancel. I’m speaking of Mark Driscoll. We did not
cancel him. He and I decided together uh that he was going to step out
of ministry for a season and get some healing. … [emphasis added]
5. THRIVE 2015 PERFORMANCE, MARK DRISCOLL CLAIMS GOD
RELEASED HIM AND GRACE DRISCOLL FROM RESPONSIBILITY TO MINISTRY
Then in 2015, at the Thrive performance, Mark Driscoll introduced a previously
unmentioned narrative element, a direct divine edict. Driscoll could have
told his inner circle of associates about this the day he says the incident
happened but, with the current record being what it is, it was not entered into
the public record as an element in any account of how and why Mark Driscoll
resigned from being president of Mars Hill and a pastor and a member there
until May 2015, when he was speaking at the Thrive Conference.
http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2015/05/courtesy-throckmorton-thrive-transcript.html https://www.wthrockmorton.com/2015/05/13/transcript-of-mark-driscolls-speech-at-the-thrive-leadership-conference-2015/
It finally came to the point where God released my wife and I from our
responsibility to ministry. He spoke to us audibly. It wasn’t what we were
expecting. It wasn’t what we had agreed to. We were both pretty shocked and the
announcement was going to come out that week. [emphasis added] And,
uh, our server, our e-mail and things apparently were hacked and there was no
way to get anything done without it being a public situation. And so
the Board, which are good, godly people in authority, which I appreciate --
they released a statement earlier than we were anticipating, so um, but that
meant, and I agree with that decision, I’m not critical of it. But that
meant that I hadn’t told my kids that I had resigned and they were in school,
taking test, it was a test week, …. we threw some stuff in a bag and ran to
school to grab the kids and within minutes it was on TV, I think it was on CNN. [emphasis
added]We pulled the kids out of school, and they already knew because of
social media -- media moves so fast. So we told them they couldn’t go
back to the house for a few days so we jumped in the car and went to a hotel
and it was just kind of a emotionally wrecked. We’d served in that city
for 20 years. Founded that church in our living room. And served it for
18 years. (loud applause) Baptized somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000
people. (audible amens from crowd).
[8:13]
So, we’re sitting with the kids explaining to them that dad had resigned and
that we were going to continue forward and that God had released us very
clearly. And my middle son -- he is really the pastor’s heart of the family,
he’s a shepherd -- his first question, I just lost it, he said “Who’s going to
care for the people?” We stayed there for a few days. Drove them into school
for their tests. I went home and checked the security footage and yeah, there
was a lot of people at our house taking photos. It was a good thing we
weren’t there. We finally came home.
So in the Thrive account the board released the
resignation letter statement sooner than anticipated. Driscoll emphasized
that the trouble the swift release of the October 14, 2014 resignation letter
was that Mark and Grace Driscoll had not yet told the Driscoll kids Mark had
resigned and the kids were in school.
CNN was it? When did CNN
cover the resignation?
Let's pull that up
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/10/15/mark-driscoll-top-megachurch-pastor-resigns/
October 15, 2014 at 4:33pm.
and RNS also covered the resignation
October 15.
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/15/exclusive-mark-driscoll-resigns-from-mars-hill-church/
http://www.religionnews.com/2014/10/15/exclusive-mark-driscolls-resignation-letter-to-mars-hill-church/
c.f. HuffPo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/15/mark-driscoll-resigns_n_5991998.html
The story seems to have broken about 3pm
October 15. And, of course
https://marshill.com/2014/10/15/pastor-mark-driscolls-resignation
http://web.archive.org/web/20141016105922/https://marshill.com/2014/10/15/pastor-mark-driscolls-resignation
So threading all the accounts together, Mark
Driscoll seems to have drafted the letter Tuesday October 14.
It was submitted to the BoAA, who released it to the public and RNS published
the resignation letter October 15. In the Thrive
presentation Mark Driscoll described that "within minutes" of going
to get his kids, CNN was discussing his resignation. It leads us to a
remarkable little question that needs some narrative grounding.
Mark and Grace Driscoll told the Fab Five Poppa
Daddy agreed to the restoration plan the Board proposed October 10th and/or
11th; and if by Mark and Grace Driscoll's account they heard from God they
were released from ministry responsibility and able to quit on Monday, October
13; if the Driscolls consulted people on October 14th and Mark Driscoll wrote
and sent his resignation letter that day; then when the media reported the
resignation on October 15 there had been at least some time in there for Mark
and Grace Driscoll have told their kids that Poppa Daddy had made the decision
to quit, right?
If Mark Driscoll's story at the Thrive
conference is true and the Houston story account shared by Mark and Grace
Driscoll is true then the question to ask is why on earth they waited for their
children to find out about Mark Driscoll's resignation the way they did rather
than telling their own children Poppa Daddy and Mom heard audibly from God that
they were released from ministry at Mars Hill and this meant they could quit,
and to tell the kids first? The space between Monday evening and about 3:00pm
October 15, 2015 PST gave them at least twenty-four
hours, didn't it? No sitting the kids down the afternoon or evening of Tuesday,
October 14, 2014 to break the news? Could not the Driscolls have shared
the news with their children FIRST and THEN sent off that letter to the
BoAA?
Still, if the Driscolls decided the best way for
their kids to find out was some other way, okay. Maybe the idea was the
resignation letter would get sent off and the BoAA would just, I don't know,
sit on it for at least a few days before releasing it to the press? That
might have given the Driscolls time to have told their children some time after
October 14. It appears, however, that the kids found out via press
coverage before their parents told them.
on the resignation letter, this is a transcript of the
audio, though thanks to coughing people and garbled voices and murmurs it's not
always easy to make out every last little syllable. There may be some
inaccuracies but the audio link is available. Transcription is not
necessarily one of Wenatchee The Hatchet's great gifts.
39.45
I never got to say good-bye to the church and the people and so what went
public was actually the resignation letter that went to the legal governing
board that was in authority over me and so, uh, i uh, I know under the
circumstances there wasn't a way to do that that would have been, uh, clean or
easy. I don't have any criticism of the board. I think that, for the people,
that there wasn't closure and I didn't, we didn't get to say anything.
And we didn't expect to resign. I met
with the board. There was a whole list of things that were charged by current
and former leaders and there was an internal governance struggle and threats of
legal action that it got very complicated. And a lot of it was anonymous
through the internet so you don't know who is saying or doing what. And so I
invited the board to do a full examination, interview anybody, anything, and we
would submit to whatever verdict that they determined.
... When
I think about eight weeks we met Friday and Saturday, October 10 and 11. I
remember because the 11th was my birthday and so Grace and I were present with
the board and they said: "We see in your history of leadership, less in
more recent years but particularly in the past, pride, anger and a domineering
leadership style." That would be the exact words they used. "We
don't see anything disqualifying. These are areas we want you to grow. We want
you to leadership at the church soon." They wanted to do some clean
up internally. "We want you back on January 4 in the pulpit, give you time
to heal, things to cool down, and for some changes to be made."
We agreed to that. I sent in a go-forward plan and then we went home to have
birthday cake with the kids. I think it was on Monday night. I was in the
bedroom. Grace was in the living room. And so we told the board and told the
kids, you know, we come back and ["will do"? garbled] preaching and
try and love and serve and, and fix what was a struggling church and God had
provided a way for us to do that as volunteers. And so our plan was to come
back as volunteers. [emphases added]
42:10
And then on that Monday night I was in the bedroom, Grace was in the living
room and he spoke to me and he spoke to her in a supernatural way that neither
of anticipated or expected. Ah, and so Grace walked in and she said, "I
feel like the Lord just spoke to me and said what we're supposed to do."
and I said "I feel like the Lord spoke to me and said what we're supposed
to do." It's not what we wanted; it's not what we agreed to; it's not what
we've planned for. And so I asked her,
"Well, what did the Lord say to you?" cuz I didn't wanna influence
and she said, uh, she said we're [Grace Driscoll speaks but it's low and
indistinct, Driscoll pauses a moment and is urged to continue by Houston] "The Lord revealed to me that , you
know, a trap has been set, there's, there's no way, chance we can return to
leadership" and I didn't know what that meant or what was going on at the
time. And I'm, I said, [garbled] "We need to resign". [emphases
added] So this is not what we anticipated and a lot of people've
thought, you know, "maybe he's another plan" but we didn't. We didn't
know what we were doing.
And Grace fell to the floor and she was just sobbing uncontrollably and I'd
never seen my wife like that. She was devastated. So we prayed and slept on it
and decided we would make sure we got this right. Talked to pastors, those that
we trust and sent in our resignation then on, it would have been Tuesday. ...
…
Based on the Houston interview,
Driscoll initiated a review process for himself by telling the board (BoO? BoE?
BoE as surrogate) to check whether he was not fit for ministry. On the
weekend of his birthday, or his birthday, he met with the board. The
board said there was nothing disqualifying him for ministry but they wanted him
to participate in a restoration plan. By Driscoll's account he agreed to
this and he and Grace explained to their kids what was going to happen.
That is all spelled out in the Houston interview.
Now what seems to have happened next was the
Monday after the meeting, Driscoll stated he heard a voice. The way he
described it at Thrive was he was released from responsibility to serve in
ministry at Mars Hill. In the Houston interview the story is more detailed
and Driscoll mentioned hearing a voice that said "a trap has been
set". There's another transcript that can be consulted now, over
here:
http://hillsongchurchwatch.com/2015/07/14/transcript-of-brian-houstons-nice-interview-with-mark-grace-driscoll-2/
In this newer account the Driscolls
describe "we're released" (Grace Driscoll) and "a trap has been
set and they could not return to ministry. Since the Hillsong focused
blog features a much longer transcript that captured more of the statements
we'll refer to that some:
… so I asked her well what
did the Lord say to you because I didn’t want to influence her and so she said,
uh, she said we’re” (39:45-42:42)
Grace Driscoll: “We’re released.” (42:43)
Brian Houston: “We can take a moment.” (42:52)
Mark Driscoll: “So, she said well what have you heard so I can
hear it. “Well the Lord revealed to me that, you know, a trap has been set
there’s no way in which to return to leadership.” And I didn’t know what that
meant or what was going on at the time. And um, I said, he said well release
too we need to resign. And so, um, you know, this is not what we anticipated,
and uh a lot of people thought you know, maybe he’s got another plan, or, we
didn’t. We didn’t know what we were doing. And Grace fell to the floor and she
was just sobbing uncontrollably and I’ve never seen my wife like that she was
devastated. Um, so we prayed and slept on it decided that we would make sure we
got this right, and uh.”
Grace Driscoll: “Speak with wise council.”
Mark Driscoll: “Sought the pastors of those we trust and sent
in our resignation in on that, it would’ve been that Tuesday, yeah, and
resigned.” (42:53-43:57)
Now this comes across as though the
Driscolls say they heard God release them from ministry Monday night.
They decided to sleep on it and Grace mentioned "wise council" Mark
Driscoll mentioned "sought the pastors of those we trust". So
if they "slept on it" Monday night, this would have been Tuesday that
they sought the council and consideration of other pastors, although if they
were sure a voice from God told them they could quit what confirmation they
would need or want seems moot.
There have been other accounts that allude to the
resignation period but they do not necessarily add much by way of information
about the resignations. In an interview
with Larry Osborne Mark Driscoll stated he met with thirtysome former leaders.
uploaded
November 16, 2016
092816
400 Gathering Session 1
50:10
Driscoll: um, I met with thirtysome former leaders that would be
sort of in the unhappy, disgruntled, frustrated category and almost every
single conversation post my-resignation and transition, it's almost like it was
a script, and they said the same thing which, I don't know if they were
processing together, it's just where it ended up. And it was,
"I can't forgive you because you're not repentant."
And I'd say, "Well, I apologized" and I would give the
dates that I apologized with them, one, on multiple occasions I said, "Did
I ever do that again?"
"No, you didn't not but I can't forgive you because you've
not repented."
I asked, "Well, what does repentance look like?"
50:54
And over and over and over it was repentance--forgiveness,
rather--forgiveness is at the END of the process, not the beginning and then I
will JUDGE you and I can't forgive you until you're repentant and that means
that I kind of sit in a God seat, and I need to give it a lot of time, and I
can't forgive you until I believe you have come to full repentance as I see it.
[emphasis added]
Now Driscoll has indicated in some interviews and statements in the past
he apologized for stuff he said and did.
Since public memory can be short-lived, it might be worthwhile to
remember what, exactly, Driscoll admitted to doing. There was an interview
about April 2017 in which Driscoll was asked point blank why so many people
seemed to be angry with him. If you
haven’t read that … :
CONFESSIONS OF A REFORMISSION REV
Mark Driscoll, Zondervan
copyright (c) 2006 by Mark Driscoll
ISBN-13: 978-0-310-27016-4
ISBN-10:0-310-27016-2
CHAPTER FIVE: JESUS, WHY AM I GETTING FATTER AND MEANER?
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]
Had
Mark Driscoll simply opted not to write as William Wallace II in the way that
he did nobody would have felt like fighting with him at 3 a.m. What he chose to
write as William Wallace II featured the opening salvo of “Pussified Nation”
and also the following:
http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/08/william-wallace-ii-and-pussified-nation.html
William Wallace II Member
posted 01-06-2001 09:01
PM
William Wallace
II
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.
So when Robison asked Mark Driscoll
repeatedly:
Randy: Why are they so mad at
you?
Notice how Driscoll’s response stayed on
story rather than the topic of the question.
Mark: Well, it was from one of
the police officers, I don't know if he was at Seattle S.P.D. but for high
alert Sundays where there was protest or there was danger. And the kids knew on
those days come in and out with police escort.
Randy: Why? Why were they so
mad at you?
Mark: You know I'm a really
lovely guy so I just don't know.
In the end Driscoll claimed to just not know why
so many people would have gotten so angry at him. Sure, in his “Mars
Hill bus” comment he ended with an observation that he’d read enough of the New
Testament to know that sometimes Paul had to put people through the wood
chipper but that couldn’t possibly have had anything to do with why anyone
might have come to dislike him.
It may have been that people came
to distrust him after he ended up being embroiled in a controversy about the
extent to which the first editions of many of his books showed evidence of
plagiarized work, discussed extensively by Warren Throckmorton at his
blog. For that matter, an early
chronicle of evidence that there was use of another author’s work without
attribution was here at Wenatchee The Hatchet.
Second editions of Driscoll books have amended notes and copy, to be
sure, but in the midst of the plagiarism controversy a Mars Hill public
relations response included mention of research assistant help that came across
to some as diffusing responsibility for what looked to be plagiarism that just
had Mark Driscoll’s name on it.
That a Docent Group writer
contributed research to Mars Hill that was passed off as Driscoll’s work has
been discussed
here. If Mars Hill had a history of
presenting the work of research assistants as the work of Mark Driscoll and
also demonstrated a capacity to shift or share blame for Driscoll’s citation
errors with Docent designated aid then one of the reasons people could be mad
at Mark Driscoll would have been because when he was initially embroiled in a
plagiarism controversy he conceded maybe he might have made a mistake but MH PR
opened up the possibility that if there was any plagiarism it wasn’t his fault
but the fault of some assistant. That
doesn’t come across as a very good demonstration of “headship”, which, as Mark
Driscoll used to put it, means that it’s your responsibility even if it isn’t
your fault. Mars Hill’s public relations
response to the immediate aftermath of Janet Mefferd’s plagiarism allegations
made it seem as though the Mars Hill idea of headship was that, perhaps, it was
someone else’s fault even if officially the authorship of materials in question
was Mark Driscoll’s responsibility.
Then there was the discovery of the
Result Source contract and how it was used to secure a place for Mark and Grace
Driscoll’s Real Marriage on the New
York Times bestseller list.
Although an anonymous commenter at the time said it
didn’t seem like plagiarism in any literal sense the fact that the newer
editions of Real Marriage now mention
Dan Allender at all suggests that at some point Mark and Grace Driscoll became
convinced or, perhaps it could be said they felt convicted, to credit Allender
with formulating ideas they found valuable.
Given the extent to which it was eventually revealed that materials
credited to Mark Driscoll were not written by him …
Replying to
@justinjdean @dawirice and 4 others
I stand corrected. He
did star in such a post -
https://www.wthrockmorton.com/2014/08/02/driscollpnapology/ …. Now truth or
dare: How much of that did you write?
12:45 PM - 22 Jun
2019
Replying to
@wthrockmorton @dawirice and 4 others
For the sake of
transparency, I'm pretty sure I wrote most of that... not that it's relevant.
That's what a good church communications director does, helps their pastor
articulate their message well. He still said it, backed it, and took the heat
for it.
12:48 PM - 22 Jun
2019
It’s probably no longer a safe
assumption to assume that anything with Grace Driscoll’s name on it is
automatically material Grace Driscoll wrote.
Ghostwriting is not unheard of in popular level publishing, after all. So it’s relevant that other people wrote
statements made on behalf of Mark Driscoll inasmuch as there was a history of
Mars Hill public relations shifting or diffusing blame to research assistants
in the days following Janet Mefferd’s interview with Mark Driscoll in 2013
where she said he was guilty of plagiarism.
People who have not personally felt thrown under the bus by leadership
at Mars Hill might not feel that’s an important distinction but it’s something
that should be considered.
Mark Driscoll’s persona as it
developed in the late 1990s was of a raw and authentic straight-talker. To borrow a term used by Alastair Roberts to
describe other kinds of Christian authors, Mark Driscoll’s initial appeal was
less as an authority as such than as a “super peer”. Go back and read the old Mother Jones article and perhaps it will be easier to understand,
but Mark Driscoll presented himself as a raw and unvarnished straight
talker. That in the later phases of Mars
Hill statements were written for him can be seen as doing considerable damage
to that persona. Docent Group writers
and researchers seem, generally, to have an understanding that they help
pastors put together material rather than that they will end up being
ghostwriters. It is important to
understand this distinction when assessing how and why people became angry with
Mark Driscoll who once were at Mars Hill and serving. The more things came to light between 2013
and late 2014 the more it seemed that Mark Driscoll was not who he had been
saying he was; to put it another way, for those who were at Mars Hill from the
1998 to 2008 period it began to seem that Driscoll had slowly and potently
transformed into nearly everything he’d warned us from the pulpit to distrust
in professional preachers. This is a
point that, to this day, it may be that Justin Dean doesn’t understand.
Lastly, the more useful you are to
God and his work, the more attacks you’ll get. Unfortunately they’ll mostly be
from other Christians.
It was other Christians that
brought down Mars Hill Church. The world just watched in awe and clapped.
5:09 PM - 22 Jun 2019 from Georgia,
USA
In PR Matters the impression Dean
gives is that Mars Hill was not up to handling the constant barrage of hostile
secular and liberal press coverage over the years so it’s possible the demise
of Mars Hill was a very complex and yet also a rapid and volatile process,
because on Twitter Dean presents Mars Hill as being brought down not by secular
or liberal press coverage as such but by other Christians.
But a Christian could at least
entertain the possibility that God chose to destroy Mars Hill Church because
its leadership betrayed all the ideals they used to stand for and had become an
insular and self-serving empire of branding more than a church.
Now there’s something to keep in
mind about all that has been discussed so far.
Justin Dean’s account basically seems to match the variety of accounts
Mark Driscoll and others gave about the nature of Mark Driscoll’s decision to
resign from leadership at Mars Hill Church and from membership. Dean’s account adds that Driscoll was offered
a restoration plan in which he would preach and teach but not be in management
of Mars Hill.
When Mark Driscoll recounted, "The
Lord revealed to me that, you know, a trap has been set, there's, there's no
way, chance we can return to leadership" and I didn't know what that meant
or what was going on at the time.” he never explained what that trap was. Who set the trap? On the one hand it seems that it can’t have
been the board, because Driscoll said he agreed to their plan and recounted how
he and his wife told their kids they agreed to the plan. So Driscoll’s own testimony would seem to
rule that out.
Then
again, Dean’s account was that the leaders offered Driscoll a chance to be a
preacher and teacher but as someone who would not be in management of Mars Hill
as a corporate entity. This is, as far
as it goes, actually a new bit of information.
If we can assume it is accurate and, at the moment, it seems to cohere
with everything we’ve seen so far, then it may add to the previously hazy sense
Mark Driscoll gave about his resignation in the context of agreeing to a plan
proposed by the board that he then reneged on by way of resignation. We know that Robert Morris said his counsel
to Driscoll was that Mark should resign and heal up. We also know from the resignation letter that
Mark Driscoll mentioned seeking godly counsel from men and women. Whether they knew about the restoration plan
in which Mark Driscoll would preach and teach but not manage the corporation we
cannot know for certain. But what we can
establish from the variety of testimonies available is that Driscoll was
offered a non-management way to return to preaching and teaching and that, at
first, he agreed to it, and then he declined it.
During a
June 2019 event Mark Driscoll gave an interview where he discussed church
governance, an interview that is worth quoting from.
05:05:04
I think a big emerging issue for the church is governance. Because of all
the legal liabilities that we got regarding marriage and gender and litigation.
In addition, I think, the governance issue is really big because now as
churches are going multisite that requires a more apostolic format of
government. Any time you have trans-local and not just local leaders and so our
first one did not have any sort of trans-local or apostolic level of
leadership. I've since been spending some good time with Pastor Robert Morris
and Pastor Jimmy Evans who I love very much. They're serving on my board at our
church as founding overseers but a lot of what the work is coming out of
Gateway and networks like that is helping to reset governance for churches and
I think governance is like a pot for a plant. If the plant's too small, excuse
me, if the pot's too small, the plant gets rootbound and it can't
grow.
05:05:03
And so if the governance is LARGE enough it
gives enough room for the leadership and the Holy Spirit to grow something that's
more fruitful. So I think, a lot of times, they want more fruit but they've got
the wrong pot. And that's governance. And once you get the right pot you
can have a more fruitful harvest.
05:08:17
So, governance is always two things. It's singular headship and plural
leadership. And, and to me on the governance issue, so, the kingdom of God is,
quite frankly, just a governance issue. We talk a lot about the kingdom of God.
It's a governance issue. There's a king who establishes a kingdom and what God had
in Heaven was a singular headship, plural leadership governance structure. The
Father, Son and Spirit are the plural leaders. The Father is the singular head.
And then Satan has a governance war in Heaven. He really wants to upend
the governance and he wants to overthrow. He loses, gets cast down to
earth. He immediately goes after Adam because Adam is the head of the human
race. Jesus shows up. He goes after Jesus because Jesus is the head of the new
covenant. He goes after Peter because Peter is the head of the disciples
and so Jesus says "Satan has asked to sift you as wheat but I have prayed
for you."
05:09:09
So there's ALWAYS a governance war, and the governance war is always the one
that was lost by Satan in heaven being replayed out in churches, families,
missions and networks. So, ultimately, governance is a demonic foothold
and ultimately--you look it, too, like, the end of the book of Revelation
... 05:09:41 and the war in all of human history is "Who gets to sit on that
throne?" That's really the governance war. And, you
know, what I like to say as well, been doing some work on this theologically
... 05:09:55 I believe God has a governance in two realms. I believe He has a
spiritual family, not just of angelic beings but what the Bible call the
heavenly hosts, the divine counsel, the sons of God and He works through
them. And then He has a human family and He works through us.
...
On governance at Scottsdale
05:12:10
I said singular headship, plural
leadership. But in that, as well, they run thrown down, not pew up. [emphasis added] A lot of
governance structures in churches are pew up. What do the people want? Let them
vote. They will tell the leaders what to do. [interviewer says
"Congregational governance"] Yeah. And if you get too big of a board
you get a de facto congregational government. Because those families
constitute such a large percentage of the population within the church.
...
What we’ve been able to establish is that
Arizona records show that the new church has Mark Driscoll as its president and
CEO
http://ecorp.azcc.gov/Details/Corp?corpId=
20491878
THE TRINITY CHURCH
MARK DRISCOLL PRESIDENT/CEO
21001 N TATUM BLVD
STE 1630-434
PHOENIX, AZ 85050
11/20/2015 10/07/2016
RANDALL TAYLOR DIRECTOR
21001 N TATUM BLVD
STE 1630-434
PHOENIX, AZ 85050
11/20/2015 10/07/2016
JIMMY EVANS DIRECTOR
21001 N TATUM BLVD
STE 1630-434
PHOENIX, AZ 85050
11/20/2015 10/07/2016
MARK DRISCOLL DIRECTOR
21001 N TATUM BLVD
STE 1630-434
PHOENIX, AZ 85050
11/20/2015 10/07/2016
This might look like
something that was the case of the former Mars Hill back in 2012.
If Mark
Driscoll has been the president of the two churches he’s founded or co-founded,
then here’s a question, a question that seems significant in light of
Driscoll’s comments about church governance.
Justin Dean’s account via Twitter
may illuminate things if we cross reference his comments to some of Mark
Driscoll’s ideas on church governance and look back at his accounts of how and
why he resigned.
Replying to @wthrockmorton @dawirice and 4
others
Yes he said he and Grace prayed in
separate rooms and both felt God wanted him to quit so he did. He was never
found unqualified. They wanted him to continue preaching, but not lead the church
or staff. Had he stayed he would have been removed from managing.
1:16 PM - 22 Jun 2019
Yes the report said he was not
disqualified as an elder but was found to have a pattern of arrogance so they
wanted him to step down from management, get help for the arrogance, but still
be the preaching pastor... then the 15 lead pastors would be in charge.
1:25 PM - 22 Jun 2019
Driscoll has said he was given an
opportunity to keep preaching and teaching at Mars Hill but that he was going
to have to step down from management.
Driscoll’s accounts since his resignation have indicated he agreed with
the plan proposed by the board and then … then he resigned with some
explanation of seeking godly counsel and Robert Morris has said for the record
he advised Driscoll to resign and heal up and then in 2015 Driscoll began to
share that he heard from God he was released from ministry and a trap had been
set. What on earth was the trap? Well, all we have to go on from the
statements made and the history provided is that Driscoll was given a
restoration plan at Mars Hill wherein he would no longer be in management but
would get to preach and teach that was offered by the governing board of Mars
Hill. That’s literally the only thing we’ve
been told about in the history of the birth, life and death of the corporate
entity that was known as Mars Hill Church that seems like a plausible candidate
for whatever “a trap has been set” could refer to, even on the detail in which
Driscoll claimed he heard there was “no way” he and Grace could return to
ministry? That doesn’t really make sense
… unless it could be explicable by way of Driscoll referencing some possibility
that once he was removed from management at Mars Hill the corporate entity
there was no way he was likely to be perceived as sufficiently cured of
arrogance to be given managerial control of the corporation he founded … or …
the church he
co-founded with Mike Gunn and Lief Moi with the support, so we were told
decades ago, of Antioch Bible Church.
Driscoll was, by the accounts given
by himself (and more recently by Justin Dean and by other accounts by people
associated with Mars Hill), cumulatively present a man who was offered a
restoration plan that he initially accepted and then declined. It wasn’t always clear what he was going to
be restored to in 2014 but Dean’s comments this year and Driscoll’s comments in
2015 open up at least a possibility to consider, that Driscoll was told he was
found too arrogant to remain in a managerial role at Mars Hill Church but that
he could continue to preach and teach.
Initially, Mark Driscoll accepted this proposal and his 2015 account to
Brian Houston was that he and his wife went to their kids and explained what
the future path was going to be.
But some time prior to the October
2014 resignation Driscoll began to seek wise counsel and at least one person,
Robert Morris, said he advised Mark Driscoll, said that he and Mark Driscoll
agreed, that Driscoll should resign and take time to heal up. Driscoll would later state in 2015 that he
heard God say he and Grace were “released” from ministry and also say that “a
trap had been set”. There had never been
any clear or coherent potential explanation as to what “a trap” could even be
but, cumulatively, it becomes possible, by collating comments from former Mars
Hill leaders in the highest echelon, to arrive at a possible explanation. Mark Driscoll was told he was not managerial
material for the corporation he had built and that he had to step down,
although he could retain his public role as preacher and teacher. He agreed to it but then, as he put it, he
sought wise counsel from godly men and women across the land. Although at the time of resignation concern
for safety of family was presented (and that’s a serious and legitimate
concern), it is also possible, in light of Mark Driscoll’s recent talk about “throne
down, not pew up” and his concern about governance that that was also a variable in his decision to
resign from Mars Hill Church as president, leader, and member.
If in Driscoll’s understanding of
church governance and ecclesiology leadership is from the throne down and not
the pew up, and if Justin Dean’s account is accurate that the Mars Hill Church
governing board offered Mark Driscoll a restoration plan in which he would stop
being in a managerial role and would preach, then the most plausible explanation
for why Mark Driscoll resigned that takes all of his accounts as factual,
face-value accounts is this: he decided that a church as a corporate entity in
which he was not seated on the throne (as president and CEO) was not a church
in which he would be a member.
POSTSCRIPT 7-14-2019
If you want to get a clearer sense of the governance context in which Mark Driscoll decided to resign, here are some pertinent passages from the Mars Hill Church bylaws from 2012.
https://www.wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/MHC-BYLAWS-1.pdf
Mars Hill Church 2012 bylaws
Article 7
Section 7.6. Removal. The primary preaching and teaching pastor for the Church may only be removed from the board of advisors & accountability if it is determined that he engaged in conduct which would disqualify him from service as an elder in the Church. This determination will be made pursuant to the procedure established in Article 12 of these Bylaws. The remaining members of the executive elder team may be removed from the board of advisors & accountability at any time for any reason upon a recommendation of removal by the primary preaching and teaching pastor for the Church and the approval of a majority of the board of advisors & accmmtability. If a member of the executive elder team is removed from his position on the board, he will also be deemed removed as a member of the executive elder team and as an officer of the Church. Any other member of the board of advisors & accountability may be removed by majority approval of the members of the board of advisors & accmmtability. In connection with any vote of the board of advisors & accountability pursuant to this Section 7.6,the member of the board of advisors & accountability being considered for removal shall not vote and shall not be taken into account for purposes of determining whether the required vote is obtained.
Section 7.7. Resignations. Subject at all times to the right of removal as provided in Section 7.6 and to the provisions of any employment agreement, any member of the board of advisors & accountability may at any time resign by giving notice in writing or by electronic transmission to the board of advisors & accountability or the chairman of the board. Such resignation shall take effect at the time specified in such notice or, if the time be not specified, upon receipt of such notice; and, unless otherwise specified in such notice, the acceptance of such resignation shall not be necessary to make it effective. If a member of the executive elder team resigns from his position on the board of advisors & accountability, he will also be deemed to have resigned as a member of the executive elder team and as an officer of the Church.
It looks like the way the bylaws were written the president had an all or nothing kind of deal. The president could resign or be removed but once the president was removed from, it seems, any position, he was removed from all other positions. Clearly Driscoll chose to resign rather than be removed, although the wording as to how not unfit for ministry Driscoll was found to be for ministry now seems a bit vague. If he was found ultimately not unfit for ministry why would he have been asked to step away from management when the bylaws that would have apparently been in effect at that point stipulated that being asked to step away from the BoAA or a managerial position meant loss of membership (go read the earlier articles). Let's look at some of the other articles.
Article 9
Section 9 .1. Election, Qualification. The primary preaching and teaching pastor for the Church shall serve as the president of the Church and shall have the authority to appoint other elders who are employed by the Church (or, if necessary to fill a vacancy while an individual completes the eldership process, a deacon) to fill other offices of the Church. The officers of the Church shall at a minimum include a president and a secretary. The president may also choose a chief operating officer, a chief financial officer, one or more vice presidents, a treasurer, one or more assistant secretaries and assistant treasurers and such other officers and agents as he shall deem necessary. Any number of offices may be held by the same person, unless the Articles of Incorporation or these Bylaws otherwise provide. The office of president and secretary may not be held by the same person.
Section 9.2. Term, Removal. The primary preaching and teaching pastor for the Church shall serve as the president of the Church until such time as he ceases to be a member of the executive elder team. Each other officer shall hold office until such officer's successor is appointed and qualified or until such officer's earlier resignation or removal. Any officer appointed by the president of the Church may be removed by the president of the Church at any time.
Section 9.3. Resignation. Subject at all times to the right of removal as provided in Section 9.2 and to the provisions of any employment agreement, any officer may resign at any time by giving notice to the board of advisors & accountability, the president, or the secretary of the Church. Any such resignation shall take effect at the date of receipt of such notice or at any later date specified provided that the president or, in the event of the resignation of the president, the board of advisors & accountability may designate an effective date for such resignation which is earlier than the date specified in such notice but which is not earlier than the date of receipt of such notice; and, unless otherwise specified in such notice, the acceptance of such resignation shall not be necessary to make it effective. If a member of the executive elder team resigns from his position as an officer of the Church, he will also be deemed to have resigned as a member of the executive elder team and the board of advisors & accountability.
Section 9.4. Vacancies. A vacancy in the office of president because of the death, resignation or removal of the primary preaching and teaching pastor shall be filled by the individual chosen to fill his vacancy on the board of advisors & accountability. A vacancy in any other office because of death, resignation, removal or any other cause may be filled in the manner prescribed in these Bylaws for appointment to such office.
Section 9.5: President. The president shall be the chief executive officer of the Church and shall, subject to the provisions of these Bylaws, (i) have general and active management of the affairs of the Church and have general supervision of its officers, agents and employees; (ii) in the absence of the chairman of the board, preside at all meetings of the full council of elders and the board of advisors & accountability; and (iii) perform those other duties incident to the office of president and as from time to time may be assigned to him by the board of advisors & accountability.
ARTICLE 12
BOARD OF OVERSEERS
Section 12.1. Constitution. In the event that a formal charge and/or accusation is made against the primary preaching and teaching pastor for the Church that, if investigated and found to be true, would disqualify him from his position as an elder in the Church based on the biblical requirements of an elder, the board of advisors & accountability shall refer the charge and/or accusation to the board of overseers. The board of overseers shall have authority to investigate any such charge and/or accusation. If the board of overseers determines that the charge and/or accusation is true, the board of overseers can vote to rebuke the primary preaching and teaching pastor or, if warranted, remove the primary preaching and teaching pastor as an elder of the Church (in which case he shall automatically be removed as a member of the board of advisors & accountability and his employment with the Church shall be terminated for cause under the terms and condition set forth in any employment agreement entered into between the primary preaching and teaching pastor for the Church and the Church).
That's a lot of formal power and a lot of combined elements. It reads as though Driscoll was chief officer, president, preaching and teaching pastor, and a member of the executive elder team and the board of advisors & accountability and yet it reads as if, were he to be removed or regarded as not qualified for any one of these elements he would be removed from all of them, or a resignation from one automatically entailed resignation from all the others. Driscoll's resignation rather than comply with a restoration plan makes a certain kind of sense based on the way the bylaws were written. At least my understanding of the bylaws is that Mark Driscoll either had full legal power to run the corporation known as Mars Hill however he saw fit or he was going to be removed or resign and stop being a member in a governance-based way. I wrote earlier that it appeared that Mark Driscoll made a decision that was reflective of an approach that held that he was either going to be on the throne at a church as a corporate entity or he wasn't even a member of that church. Reviewing the bylaws from 2012 era Mars Hill it would seem that this was woven into the very fabric, the wording of the Mars Hill bylaws.
