Mark Driscoll Gives It All to the Church? It Depends on What His Definition of “All” Is.

A half truth is a whole lie. ~Yiddish Proverb link

http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=2703&picture=money-fight

Fighting Over Money

Update from Pajama Pages : 10/21/14: Thanks to an alert reader
UPDATE 5/29/14 I hadn’t noticed this earlier, but the last-reported income of $4,643 is exactly one percent of the 2011 income of $464,340. This suggests that the CRUT paid out the standard 10 percent to the Driscolls in 2012, which would have been $46,434. (The date of the $4,643 isn’t indicated on the report, except that it was before 2014.) If the Driscolls tithed this back to Mars Hill via the On Mission CRUT, they would have made a contribution of $4,643, which is exactly what we see reported. IRS regulations do allow contributions back into the CRUT from the original donors. Is it possible that Mark Driscoll is tithing his tithed book income back to himself?


Last week, we mentioned Carl Trueman's post at First Things, Mark Driscoll's Problems, and Ours. However, the comments under the post (I love it when "real men" can stand the courage of their convictions and allow for comments) present a possible misunderstanding of the words of Mark Driscoll. 

Hunter Hanger said:

Furthermore, Trueman conveniently leaves out that: "All monies from the sale of Pastor Mark’s books at Mars Hill bookstores have always gone to the church and Pastor Mark did not profit from the Real Marriage books sold". So, basically, it is like he's mad at a church for marketing a product that is intended to help people's marriages. 

We are called to be Bereans. We need to carefully check the words of the pastors and church leaders and not accept them on face value.That includes their reports on financial management. This can prove to be a  problem for many people because complex accounting tactics can be difficult to decipher. When a pastor has a bevy of lawyers and accountant taking care of stuff, it can be even more difficult to see what is going on. It is relatively easy to say one thing and mean another in this game. Both can be true, depending on how you define terms.

Deb reminded me of a relevant story in Acts 5:1-4. Let me state this loud and clear. I find the outcome of this incident difficult and I have yet to reach a place of peace with it. Obviously, this was considered a big deal to the apostles and God. If anyone says that I believe that God is going to strike someone dead, I will personally smack them upside the head. 

( From the NIV-Bible Gateway)

Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.

Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?  Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

Ananias and Sapphira sold property and pretended to give it all to the apostles. Interestingly, it was the apparent lie that got everyone's attention. Remember, they pretended to give all of the proceeds from the sale of property to the church. They didn't. It was considered bad.  Catch my drift?

There are many young people at Driscoll's churches who have little experience with the complexities of legal accounting methods. Do not misunderstand me. I am not accusing Mark Driscoll of doing anything illegal with his money management. I don't know if he is or isn't. However, I am saying that there is much more to be discussed before giving him a pass of giving it "all" to the church. 

Dr James Duncan at Pajama Pages presents an excellent tutorial on the use of certain types of trusts in managing money. I would venture to guess that the majority of our readership, along with the majority of people at Mars Hill, have little to no experience with these matters. Please take the time to read this excellent post on the ins and out of trusts. You will not look at the Driscoll situation in the same way after reading this.

Once again, we thank him for his kindness in allowing us to repost his excellent tutorial on how to figure out what might be going on.


 

How Mark Driscoll pockets the moneyhe gives to Mars Hill 5

Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill have been defending some of their actions relating to the deceptive marketing of the Real Marriage book by claiming that Driscoll had given much or all of the money he had made from the book to the church. Driscoll told a meeting of church leaders that he and his wife were “tithing 100 percent” of their earnings to the church.

Just like the #1 New York Times ranking, it’s a claim that’s accurate but untrue.

Yes, Mark Driscoll has given some of his book money to the church, but almost all of it is funneled back to him through a tax vehicle called a Charitable Remainder UniTrust (CRUT for short). If you endured with me through the inurement post, I think you can make it through this one, too. I’ll tell you what a CRUT is, what we know about Driscoll’s CRUT, then we’ll go through a timeline of Mark Driscoll’s multi-state corporate entities to show you what he is doing with his book money.

How CRUTs work

Perhaps the best way to explain a CRUT is to take each term separately.

Charitable. A donor selects a nonprofit charity as the ultimate beneficiary from what is considered a donation. CRUTs are a common mechanism for nonprofit organizations to manage donations from wealthy donors, so there’s nothing inherently dishonest or unethical about them. They were created by an act of Congress, so they are entirely legal and they help a lot of great organizations. If you’ve ever seen offers by charities to help you with estate planning and planned giving, a CRUT is one of the things they will offer to create for you. Driscoll’s CRUT, which was created in Colorado, is registered to the same address as Mars Hill Church, so we can assume that the church is the official charity for this CRUT.

Unitrust. We need to take the terms out of order for the next step to make sense. At least once a year, the CRUT must distribute a percentage of its assets to what is termed the “non-charitable beneficiary.” This is a person (or persons) that was living at the time that the CRUT was established, and is living at the time of the annual distribution. Most CRUTs designate the person establishing it as the non-charitable beneficiary, so it functions as an annuity or pension for the rest of that person’s life. The CRUT must pay between 5 percent and 50 percent of the value each year. The rate of distribution cannot vary once the CRUT has been created, hence the uni in the title.

For example, let’s say you establish a CRUT with $500,000 with a 10 percent annual distribution rate. At the end of the first year, you’d get a check for $50,000. Let’s say, though, that the CRUT had invested its assets well so that at the end of the second year its assets were worth $750,000. You’d get a check for $75,000 at the end of year two. On the other hand, the market may have done poorly, so you could get a check of $30,000 if the assets were valued at $300,000.

We don’t know who the Driscolls have designated as the non-charitable beneficiaries, though, given that he has said that he could retire and live off his book income, it is certainly one or more members of his family. In Elephant Room One, Driscoll, who was supposed to be moderating a discussion between David Platt and James MacDonald on wealth, seemed to argue with Platt about the need for parents to set aside wealth for their children to benefit them to “a thousand generations.” (Watch at around 8:50.) Driscoll also owns a Washington corporation called Lasting Legacy, which, based on its title, may be his vehicle for protecting his income for his children. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it does show that he is intentional about saving money from his endeavors for his family, and a CRUT is a perfect way to do that.

Remainder. Why do charities promote CRUTs if the money is paid to the donor? Because they eventually get value from it when one of two things happens. First, if the recipient of the annuity dies, whatever is left in the CRUT goes to the charity. Second, when payouts or market fluctuations deplete the value to 10 percent of the original donation, the payouts cease and the 10 percent goes to the charity. This is the remainder after either death or depletion. In our $500,000 example, the charity would know that it will eventually get at least $50,000, though it may get much more if the donor dies before the balance reaches that threshold.

One of the reasons donors use CRUTs is that they can protect large influxes of wealth from immediate taxation. So rather than having to pay taxes on $500,000, the donor would pay taxes on the $50,000 paid in the first year, though that payment will vary from year to year. One explanation of the system described the donor as “renting” the charity’s nonprofit status, with the rent being the eventual 10 percent remainder. (This is a simplified layman’s explanation. Don’t go out and start a CRUT based on what you read here. Consult a real expert first.)

What we know about the Driscoll CRUT

Thanks to research assistance by a helpful PP reader and the work of Wenatchee the Hatchet, we know a little bit about the income and ownership structure of Driscoll’s various personal corporate entities. To spare you some of the details for now, you can review the timeline of how these came to be a little later in this post.

For now, it is sufficient to understand that Driscoll’s Real Marriage book was published in early 2012, though he would have received his first income in the form of an advance from the publisher in 2011. The book is copyrighted to On Mission LLC, which is 75 percent owned by On Mission CRUT, and 25 percent owned by Living Legacy LLC.

For the 2012 tax year, On Mission CRUT reported income of $464,340. This is almost certainly from the Real Marriage advance. If we assume that Driscoll’s literary agent collects a standard 15 percent commission and that the advance was split 75/25 by On Mission LLC, the owner of the book (with OMCRUT getting 75 percent), we find that the probable advance for the book was around $720,000.

This is in line with my estimated royalty earnings of around $500,000 from just the New York Times listing alone. We know from the contract that Result Source coordinates with the publisher to ensure enough copies are printed for its initial mass purchases, so the publisher would have known that the NYT campaign was going to happen when it negotiated the advance with Driscoll’s literary agent. Welearned from NewSpring that it was Noble’s literary agent that suggested the Result Source campaign, and it’s  likely that Noble and Driscoll share the same agent, cross promoting each other’s books, as they do. I think that Driscoll’s agent negotiated the advance with the publisher and promised that the church would contribute the money necessary for the RSI campaign, promote it in a sermon series, and create a national Real Marriage tour to promote it long after its January release. If the publisher was assured that all that would happen, a $720,000 advance to Driscoll would not have been a terribly risky bet.

On several occasions Driscoll has said that all or most of his book income goes to Mars Hill. For example, he said this in 2009:

Mars Hill gets half of all the royalties so the books that I publish, about 75% of the revenue goes to Mars Hill Church, not me. Not me.  Because I’m worried about this issue, greed, shameful gain.

Though this statement predates the On Mission CRUT, the 75 percent figure perfectly matches OMCRUT’s 75 percent ownership share of Driscoll’s books. This is surprising, because the claim that most of the money is going back to the church doesn’t match his more-recent claim that his book income is sufficient for him and has family to live off. Simply giving half of it away probably wouldn’t give him enough income to live off comfortably, nor would it provide for his children and grandchildren.

Just before the Real Marriage book was released, he told Mars Hill leaders that “Grace and I are tithing 100 percent of any proceeds we receive from that pre-sale campaign back to Mars Hill Church.” At the time, it seemed strange that he would refer to a 100 percent donation as a tithe, especially because a tithe means just ten percent.

Now that you understand how his CRUT works, those statements make more sense. In a sense, everything that goes into the CRUT is donated to Mars Hill. Once money enters the CRUT, Mars Hill is guaranteed a payout, though it doesn’t know when. That minimum payout, as you know now, is 10 percent — a tithe. By using the CRUT, Driscoll can say that he donated 100 percent to the church, though it does truly constitute a tithe, because 10 percent is all that Mars Hill may eventually get.

By putting his book money into a CRUT, Driscoll can reassure us that the church is getting the lion’s share of his earnings, though the church can’t actually touch his gift until the CRUT has paid most of the money to the Driscoll family, assuming, as we hope, they live long enough for that to happen.

The lesson is that next time you hear a celebrity pastor claim that he’s giving his earnings back to the church, you need to ask, “How, and when?”

Timeline of Driscoll Inc.

Here’s the timeline of what we can establish through public records of how all of these entities work:

On or before Jan 28, 2011 The On Mission Charitable Remainder Unitrust is established with Driscoll as the trustee.

Jan 28, 2011 On Mission LLC is created in the state of Colorado to “manage book royalties, printing and publishing.” Driscoll contributes $125 of $500 and OMCRUT contributes $375, giving us the 25/75 ownership split.

Sept 30, 2011 OMCRU Investments LLC is filed with Colorado Secretary of State, and is set up to manage property and investments. The manager is Mark Driscoll, and OMCRUT owns all of the initial $500 in capital.

Oct 10, 2011 This is the first evidence of the Real Marriage campaign. This is significant for its proximity to the Sept 30 activity, and suggests that these entities were being created in anticipation of having to manage the large income from the book.

Oct 13, 2011 The Result Source contract is signed.

Late November, 2011 Driscoll describes the Real Marriage campaign to his church leaders and expects them to help him push the book.

End of 2011 On Mission CRUT reports income of $464,340 for the 2011-12 tax year.

Jan 3, 2012 Real Marriage is released.

April 17, 2012 Lasting Legacy LLC is registered in the State of Washington with Mark Driscoll as the governing person.

Dec 6, 2012 OMCRU Investments LLC is registered in the State of Washington with OMCRUT as the governing person.

Dec 6, 2012 On Mission LLC registered with the State of Washington with OMCRU Investments and Lasting Legacy as governing persons.

Feb 21, 2014 On Mission CRUT is noted as having income of $4,643.

 

Why does this song seem apropos? 

Lydia's Corner: Jeremiah 42:1-44:23 2 Timothy 2:1-21 Psalm 92:1-93:5 Proverbs 26:3-5
 

Comments

Mark Driscoll Gives It All to the Church? It Depends on What His Definition of “All” Is. — 333 Comments

  1. It’s a way to fraudulently claim you’re giving more to a church/charity than you really are. So much for honesty. Throw ‘being above reproach’ out the window.

  2. Wow. I should visit our local Mars Hill this coming weekend, see if it’s addressed at all.

  3. Mark Driscoll is like the charlatan father in The Brothers Karamazov. He needs a Father Zossima in his life.

    ————————————-

    (From Chapter Two, “The Old Buffoon”)

    Father Zossima, lifting his eyes, looked at him, and said with a

    smile:

    “You have known for a long time what you must do. You have sense

    enough: don’t give way to drunkenness and incontinence of speech;

    don’t give way to sensual lust; and, above all, to the love of

    money. And close your taverns. If you can’t close all, at least two or

    three. And, above all- don’t lie.”

    “You mean about Diderot?”

    “No, not about Diderot. Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The

    man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a

    pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him,

    and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no

    respect he ceases to love, and in order to occupy and distract himself

    without love he gives way to passions and coarse pleasures, and

    sinks to bestiality in his vices, all from continual lying to other

    men and to himself. The man who lies to himself can be more easily

    offended than anyone. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take

    offence, isn’t it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but

    that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and

    exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a

    mountain out of a molehill- he knows that himself, yet he will be

    the first to take offence, and will revel in his resentment till he

    feels great pleasure in it, and so pass to genuine vindictiveness. But

    get up, sit down, I beg you. All this, too, is deceitful

    posturing….”

    http://www.ccel.org/d/dostoevsky/karamozov/htm/book02/chapter02.html

  4.  __

    “Constructive criticism is necessary in every walk of life. If you remove accountability, const. criticism, etc…you create a monster for lack of a better word.” ~ Martin

    Dig Deeper.

    These lit’l 501(c)3 ‘religious’ buggers hide good.

    (sadface)

    Sopy

  5. I made the mistake on commenting on a propaganda piece on the Christianity Today online magazine, so I have been a little tied up. I have since learned my lesson and won’t do that again. sigh. Some folks just want to worship at the altar of Driscoll. So I left that site and walked off into the sunset the sinful and bitter woman they want to believe I am. I am so grateful none of these folks have anything to do with my personal relationship with Jesus…

  6. rebeccalynn wrote:

    I made the mistake on commenting on a propaganda piece on the Christianity Today online magazine, so I have been a little tied up. I have since learned my lesson and won’t do that again. sigh. Some folks just want to worship at the altar of Driscoll. So I left that site and walked off into the sunset the sinful and bitter woman they want to believe I am. I am so grateful none of these folks have anything to do with my personal relationship with Jesus…

    Amen and amen.

  7.   __

    rebeccalynn,

    We here at TWW,  have a warm blanket, and a roaring fire, and a cozy sofa…come
     sit a spell, darlin’…

    don’t you worry your lit’l self…    🙂

    ATB

    Sopy

  8. pcapastor wrote:

    I made the mistake on commenting on a propaganda piece on the Christianity Today online

    Yes, the “Amen Chorus” of fans sure lit into you, didn’t they?
    So sorry that you had to suffer that, on top of what you have already been through.
    That Christianity Today article is in the same vein as Ortlund’s propaganda piece on the Gospel Coalition.
    It is all so sick and twisted the way they come to to the fore to justify wrongdoing. And for those who have been drinking the Kool-Aid, or sitting on the fence, it all just reinforces their remaining under the spell of the abuser.

  9. Sopwith wrote:

    We here at TWW, have a warm blanket, and a roaring fire, and a cozy sofa…come
    sit a spell, darlin’…

    Amen! Thank God for TWW!

  10. Wow! After reading this, I am completely okay with the *concept* of the CRUT. If that’s all Driscoll was doing, I don’t think there would be *anything* wrong with that. But since he claimed, or at least made it seem, that the money was all going to the church… wow. Just wow. If all information laid out here is 100% correct, I don’t see how Driscoll’s statement could be seen as anything other than a lie.

  11. As stated above, there’s nothing illegal or unethical about such an arrangement–but, assuming all here is accurate, there’s something highly disingenuous and unethical about the way it was represented by Mr. Driscoll.

    What seems bizarre is, considering the worshipful attitudes expressed towards Mr. Driscoll by his followers, virtually anything he does is justified, he could have told his congregation the unvarnished truth and the great majority would’ve felt that it’s great Pastor Mark is getting his due, getting a massive advance, drawing it out over time through a trust established by the church for his benefit.

    Why the need to obfuscate?

    Either it’s the pathological liar unable to will the truth out of his mouth or an extremely ambitious and immature man desperately wanting to be the Biggest Thing Going, and keenly aware that outside the strange world of Mars Hill, people expect a little integrity out of leaders and are not so credulous.

  12. I mean, the CRUT on its own seems like a really good idea, based on this explanation. It's kind of like a combination of a bequest and a life insurance policy, tied together. I'm totally for that, and I think it's better than Driscoll just pocketing the money. The problem comes in where he said he was giving 100% of sales to the church. It seems that's not even remotely the case… 🙁

  13. pcapastor wrote:

    Mark Driscoll is like the charlatan father in The Brothers Karamazov. He needs a Father Zossima in his life.

    ————————————-

    (From Chapter Two, “The Old Buffoon”)

    Father Zossima, lifting his eyes, looked at him, and said with a

    smile:

    “You have known for a long time what you must do. You have sense

    enough: don’t give way to drunkenness and incontinence of speech;

    don’t give way to sensual lust; and, above all, to the love of

    money. And close your taverns. If you can’t close all, at least two or

    three. And, above all- don’t lie.”

    “You mean about Diderot?”

    “No, not about Diderot. Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The

    man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to such a

    pass that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him,

    and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no

    respect he ceases to love, and in order to occupy and distract himself

    without love he gives way to passions and coarse pleasures, and

    sinks to bestiality in his vices, all from continual lying to other

    men and to himself. The man who lies to himself can be more easily

    offended than anyone. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take

    offence, isn’t it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but

    that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and

    exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a

    mountain out of a molehill- he knows that himself, yet he will be

    the first to take offence, and will revel in his resentment till he

    feels great pleasure in it, and so pass to genuine vindictiveness. But

    get up, sit down, I beg you. All this, too, is deceitful

    posturing….”

    http://www.ccel.org/d/dostoevsky/karamozov/htm/book02/chapter02.html

    From what I’ve read Dostoevsky was probably a believer, it shows in his work.

  14. @ Sopwith:
    Thanks sopy, I don’t think it was an accident that I found this safe place to land. I am so grateful for the Deebs and their telling of my story and all the stories they have told. Love that comfy couch and warm fire. Please will you all keep my son Alex in your prayers I was up late at the hospital with him, double lung infection and high fever. He and I are both wiped out, so I am a little thin skinned today. Mayhap why I got so upset over the other experience on the blogosphere today. I forget to keep my armor on when dealing with these kinds of folks.

  15.  __

    rebeccalynn ,

    🙂

    will do. (pray’in…)

    would you like  <(_)  of hot chocolate? 

    blessings to U  & your family!

    http://www.ftdimg.com/pics/products/BD21_330x370.jpg

    U Matter!

    Lord, You are ever faithful,  You have taught me wisdom in that secret place of prayer…faithfulness is your middle name!

    Yahooooooo!

    "You are my shepherd – there's nothing I shall want
    Beside still waters You lead my spirit on
    Your hand beside me no matter where I walk
    Through darkest valley Your love is not far off.
    And I will dwell in Your house forever 
    Lead me on
    I fear no evil, for You are with me
    You set this table before my enemies
    And You anoint me – You overflow my cup
    And they will follow me, Your goodness and Your love.
    And I will dwell in Your house forever 
    Lead me on
    Your rod and Your staff are a strange mercy
    In a world where I'm not yet home.
    And I will dwell in Your house forever 
    Lead me on…" ~Audrey Assad: "Lead Me On"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CO7UXya62ko

    bless'ins!

    Sopy

  16. “This is in line with my estimated royalty earnings of around $500,000 from just the New York Times listing alone.”

    Meanwhile, most authors of scholarly books that offer genuinely new insights on the Bible, theology, etc. will at best get a royalty check that will buy them a few pizzas. And people with advanced degrees in theology whose exegesis is ten times superior to Mark Driscoll’s are making minimum wage as adjuncts.

    The real problem with Mark Driscoll is not the man and his flaws, but that our evangelical culture makes it possible for someone to rehash the same old things, make them “sexier” and have a six-figure income.

  17. @ rebeccalynn:

    I am grateful that you shared your church experience with us. I think of you often. Please know that I am praying for both you and your son.

    To our readers:  We shared Rebecca's story back in December. If you haven't read it, here it is in four installments:

    Is Acts 29 Planting or Decimating Churches

    Replanting Countryside Acts 29 Style:  A Personal Testimony

    Is This Church Discipline Acts 29 Style?

    Countryside Defaults:  Where is the Acts 29 Leadership in These Situations

  18. The dishonesty is appalling to say the least. I read this over at The Pajama Pages and I am still trying to understand how this was done. While legal it's still shady, and still shifty. For Mark Driscoll itself it puts a lot of what he says in a new twist.

    Dr. Duncan worked on that other piece about "inoument" (? sp?) and I wonder that given how Mark Driscoll could have violated Mars Hill 501-(c)(3) status…I wonder when is the IRS going to get involved? Driscoll…like CJ Mahaney and the perp who runs SGM Fairfax down the street from me…need to learn that there are laws they need to submit to.

    For all the claims these "men" (I put that in quotes for a reason because the Deebs and most females have more balls than they do…) have about the inerrancy of scripture and a high view of "The Gospel" they don't follow much of scripture at all especially Romans 13 and Titus when it talks about submitting to civil authorities. Maybe if the IRS was breathing down Mark Driscoll's back or he went to prison for fraud like Chuck Colson did, maybe then he would learn how to submit.

  19. I don't understand how these pastors have time to write books and take speaking engagements? When you look at the list of everything Mark Driscoll says he's doing, does he really have enough time left to give a proper work week to the church that pays him? Or shall I say provides for him in whatever way they do?

  20. @ Eagle:
    I was on Christianity Today’s website, they did a fluff piece on Driscoll’s apology if you want to call it that. They had a small chorus of mars hill bots praising god for how humble he was, blah blah, blah, you know all that stuff. Kinda made me a bit queasy. But like I said I am a little thin skinned over how tired I am tonight.

  21. Eagle wrote:

    Driscoll…like CJ Mahaney and the perp who runs SGM Fairfax down the street from me…need to learn that there are laws they need to submit to.

    “the perp who runs SGM Fairfax”
    *
    Eagle, I take it your calling the pastor of SGM Fairfax a “perp?”
    *
    Personally, I wish you wouldn’t do that. Sen

  22. Eagle wrote:

    Dr. Duncan worked on that other piece about “inoument” (? sp?) and I wonder that given how Mark Driscoll could have violated Mars Hill 501-(c)(3) status…I wonder when is the IRS going to get involved? Driscoll…like CJ Mahaney and the perp who runs SGM Fairfax down the street from me…need to learn that there are laws they need to submit to.

    The IRS needs to receive complaints from taxpayers regarding inurement. *nudge* *nudge*

  23. I have to hand it to Dr. Duncan, Wenatchee the Hatchet and the Pajama Pages reader for an amazing explication of a particular CRUT. I have to admit, I honestly have to admit, I never thought of Mark Driscoll using one of these vehicles to structure his finances. I suppose I should have not been quite so naive. Now I’m wondering if the use of CRUTs is widespread

    It also never occurred to me that a publisher would give Driscoll a $720,000 advance. That’s absolutely *unbelievable*. That’s *bestseller* money. It may not be what Stephen King gets when he churns out a blockbuster horror novel, but it’s the next rung down.

    However, in order to earn that advance, I did some back of the envelope calculations to see how many books he’d have to push. The list price of “Real Marriage” is $22.99. The standard royalty is 15 percent, or $3.4485 on each copy. (This part is *very* back of the envelope; sometimes royalties drop after so many units are sold.) In order to earn back that estimated $720,000 advance(and this is before he’d see a dime), he’d have to sell 208,786 books at a 15 percent royalty; more if the royalty dropped.

    Someone check my math; I’m feeling a bit faint.

    So, to bring this back around to getting on the New York Times bestseller list: Driscoll NEEDED to do SOMETHING so he could earn back his humongous advance. Of course he had the sermon series, of course he had his different Mars Hill outlets buying copies to sell, of course he had his fanbois primed to buy books. But in order to push it over the top, he needed that bestseller so he could get the attention to make back his advance. Enter Result Source Inc. Driscoll had EVERY incentive to use Result Source.

    Oh yeah, and tying it all up in a nice neat package: This whole thing started because Driscoll was caught plagiarizing and wouldn’t ‘fess up and make right like other authors have done when they’ve been caught doing the same thing. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire, or, to quote a bit of Bible (totally ripped out of context): “be sure your sin will find you out.” (Numbers 32:23) If Driscoll had come clean at the beginning, would it have gotten this far? I don’t think so.

    I have to say that Mark Driscoll’s problems here were caused by…Mark Driscoll. All of this stuff may be legal (then again, it may not be), but it looks very, very sleazy. (Money changers in the temple comes to mind here.) It doesn’t look like a guy who’s trying to minister the Word of God to people. It looks like someone who is in it to make a buck or two. If that was Driscoll’s goal*, well, he’s made it.

    I know I’ll never see a $720,000 payday in my life, but at least I know I earned my money honestly. I didn’t plagiarize to get a book written, I didn’t employ a scheme to get my book on the bestseller lists and I didn’t sock my advance money away in a CRUT and then make it look like I was being generous with the church I pastor** when in point of fact I was going to live off the money anyway and give the church the remainder. It’s probably just as well, since I’m well-known for messing up an IRS Form 1040EZ three separate times. (Someone else does my taxes now that they’re more complex.)

    ===========

    *Actually, I think Driscoll’s goal is power over the minds of many, and the money is just a nice bonus.

    **Why does Rick Warren keep coming to mind here? 🙂

  24. @ Seneca “j” Griggs.:

    I don’t know Seneca….maybe the SGM pastor would take molestation much more seriously if he were molested in jail. Either way remember…since God foreordains evil he should just submit. 😉

  25. Damien wrote:

    “This is in line with my estimated royalty earnings of around $500,000 from just the New York Times listing alone.”

    “New York Times listing” as in $200,000 for Result Source to juice the book?

  26. rebeccalynn wrote:

    They had a small chorus of mars hill bots praising god for how humble he was, blah blah, blah, you know all that stuff.

    Blowing long trumpets before Him to announce how HUMBLE He is.

  27. Deb wrote:

    @ rebeccalynn:
    I hadn’t seen the CT piece. Here’s the link for anyone who cares to read it.
    Mark Driscoll Retracts Bestseller Book Status, Resets Life

    If I didn’t have to create an account, I’d definitely jump in. At this point, when I see the blind MD props, I view John Carpenter and his multiple identities.

  28. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    Eagle wrote:
    *
    Eagle, I take it your calling the pastor of SGM Fairfax a “perp?”
    *
    Personally, I wish you wouldn’t do that. Sen

    Ummmm is this pastor the same guy that has pretty much laughed off claims of sexual abuse in his congregation? I think that is on the same level of heinousness as being a perp…Maybe this was discussed here already? I practically vomit at the thought of someone in such a high leadership position – SGM Fairfax is a pretty large congregation – sweeping criminal behavior like that under the rug….just my humble opinion…

  29. @ JadedOne:
    Yeah I really felt I was dealing with John Carpenter at one time. The two Mr. Smith’s sounded so much alike. How original to have to identities with the same last name eh? Just another day in the ridiculous world of Mars Hill bots…..

  30. @ Damien:
    You have said it better than I ever could. Exactly, why have we evangelicals sunk so low that people think Mark Driscoll is a good preacher? Have they actually listened to a sermon with their Bible open/on to the correct verses? He messes the context up, a quick read would show it, and everyone praises his great theology?!? He does something stupid and everyone says “we all make mistakes”. Wouldn’t you love to hear your surgeon say that before he cuts you open? Sure, we all make mistakes, but if we keep making huge mistakes in our job, then it is time to get a new job – except Mark Driscoll.

    I was just on Facebook today pointing out it was a half-baked apology and everyone was commenting how “we all make mistakes” again. Gah. Him and Rob Ford (Mayor of Toronto) must have the same audience (and agent, or something). I think their agent is Teflon.

  31. OK, one niggling point here though. Sure the CRUT may be fine and legal (and deceptive, since they claim they are giving all their money back to the church), but what about this statement?:
    “I think that Driscoll’s agent negotiated the advance with the publisher and promised that the church would contribute the money necessary for the RSI campaign,…”

    Wait, the church would contribute the $ for the RSI (get on the NYT bestseller list) campaign??? If that is true, then isn’t that non-profit money going to something for-profit (the RSI firm for a for-profit book)? Does that work legally? Isn’t that sort of like a church taking it’s tithes and using them to start a profitable (and very taxable) business? Wouldn’t every business person start a church if that was legal?

  32. Why not just disclose the full income of book sales and just how much goes to the church. If MD only wants to give a standard tithe of the sales (in which he used the pulpit and church funds to bolster his sales…but i digress) I guess that is his business. But please don’t claim that you’re being more generous than you actually are. That is absolutely disgusting.

  33. rebeccalynn wrote:

    @ Eagle:
    I was on Christianity Today’s website, they did a fluff piece on Driscoll’s apology if you want to call it that. They had a small chorus of mars hill bots praising god for how humble he was, blah blah, blah, you know all that stuff. Kinda made me a bit queasy. But like I said I am a little thin skinned over how tired I am tonight.

    So, I noticed this morning that CT deleted one of my comments and one of Crab Grass’s comments that had links to places you could read MD criticism. I’ve never had a comment removed from CT before.

  34. Christy
    So, I noticed this morning that CT deleted one of my comments and one of Crab Grass’s comments that had links to places you could read MD criticism. I’ve never had a comment removed from CT before.

    Never mind. It’s back now. Maybe someone flagged it.

  35. @ Marie2:

    There is a concept in law that is not being applied to this, and perhaps should be: complicit after the fact. Also possibly “contributing to the delinquency of a minor” and, of course, in some states, failing to report. But on a spiritual level, he has perpetrated a system that allows abuse to continue or to occur in the first place, and so he is a perpetrator!

  36. @ Val:

    A non-profit can own and operate a for profit business. The profit has to go to the non-profit and other rules apply, and the for profit business must file a tax return and by taxes on the profit, in many instances.

  37. @ Val:

    Also, a non-profit can hire a for-profit to do things for the non-profit (e.g., provide legal services, accounting services, utilities, construction, repairs, operate the sound system, etc.) Some churches are essentially shells that employ businesses that employ the people who work for the church, up to but generally not including the pastor. So, start a church, set up an LLC, and contract between your church and your LLC; then your church can pay outrageous prices for services and materials provided by your LLC.

  38. Apologies these are rather general comment, but some recap:

    In my view, based on current information, Mark Driscoll will carry on doing things he has done in the past and there is a very longstanding pattern of behavior that predicts this (if you want to predict behavior, the best predictor is past behavior – sometimes ignoring this fact can be fatal in history).

    His latest comments and actions (giving up social media – reducing speaking engagements – wow!) do not address the fundamental issues.

    For me, the real issue is why people around him continue to excuse and support him and make it possible for this state of affairs to continue? These are the people who need challenging and they share responsibility for his actions and the disastrously negative outcomes.

    In the UK the work of Mark Driscoll is promoted by Newfrontiers,including Terry Virgo (see his web pages) and Adrian Warnock (see various blogs/ interviews on the internet).

    So if any Newfrontiers church attenders have stumbled upon this blog please address the following:

    Question: Were we duped into believing Mark Drisoll’s book ‘Real Marriage’ was more popular than was actually the case by him instigating through the church he leads to employ a a company to use a dodgy (but legal) scam and this resulted it in it being a New York Times best seller, something that was used to then promote the book.

    Answer: Yes – beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Questions: Did Mark Driscoll know about this and that people would be duped because of the scam?

    Answer: Yes – beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Question: Has Mark Driscoll financially substantially benefited from the results of he scam?

    Answer: Yes – beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Question: Did he hope to get away with it, but got found out.

    Answer: Yes – on the balance of probabilities.

    Question: Now that this scam has been exposed, has Mark Driscoll accepted responsibility and apologized.

    Answer: No – beyond all reasonable doubt – his answers are damage limitation comments designed to appear apologetic but not accepting responsibility, a strategy he uses repeatedly, based on his communication training.

    Question: Has Mark Driscoll knowingly duped people into thinking that he does not benefit from the proceeds of the book?

    Answer: Yes – beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Question: Has Mark Driscoll authored books that involve plagiarism?

    Answer: Yes – beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Question: Has Mark Driscoll taken responsibility for this happening and apologized on this basis?

    Answer: No – beyond all reasonable doubt, he has attempted to shift the blame on the book researchers.

    Question:

    Has Mark Driscoll engaged in similarly unethical or dishonest behaviour in the past?

    Answer: Yes – beyond reasonable doubt.

    Question: If a prominent minister in a UK Newfrontiers Church done such things would he (he because there are no she’s) retain his ministry?

    Answer: No – on the balance of probabilities.

    Question: So why are Newfrontiers silent on these issues and why do they continue to support him and make excuses for his behaviour?

    Answer: A complete mystery………. But the closest I get to this is the theory as to why so called ‘good people’ ignore the actions of leaders behaving in an abusive and immoral fashion. The received wisdom is not that they are brain washed, but that the person gives them something that satisfies their desires so powerfully and sufficiently to overlook the wrong doing.

    In other words it is a conscious choice, but perhaps driven by a subconscious want (sometimes not so subconscious).

    In the case of Terry Virgo, he earnestly wants to be part of the larger neoReformed/ Calvinist scene and have international recognition for Newfrontiers – so, for example, Mark Driscoll is promoted on Terry Virgo’s website by a photograph of him interviewing Mark Driscoll. Dr Adrian Warnock has gained prominence as a blogger by interviewing famous neoReformed/ Calvinist celebrities. This satisfies is ego and gives him a sense of self worth as an important Newfrontiers personality.

    This is the closest I can get to an explanation. Other explanations such as ‘ignorance’ and ‘well meaning naivety’ don’t wash given the capabilities and ‘knowing’ of these people.

  39. An Attorney wrote:

    @ Marie2:
    ….But on a spiritual level, he has perpetrated a system that allows abuse to continue or to occur in the first place, and so he is a perpetrator!

    Yes!!!! Amen!! I did not intend to come across as defending this guy at all. I used to attend SGM Fairfax when it was Fairfax Covenant Church during summer and winter breaks at college…..almost 30 years ago…Yikes! And while there were some legalistic things going on here and there….I was too young to discern them them. I was said that my little college church in upstate NY did not have the “bling” that FCC had at the time, but now I am sooo grateful that I was not highly involved with those people. So sad that they have been able to get away so long with such abuse!!

  40. So we are saying that it is OK to set up a “church” as a business, tax exempt of course, as long as that church and its leadership obey the laws of the land? Well, there are enormous financial advantages to that. And, yes, that is how it is done in America. Didn’t someone say that the business of America is business? Of course, I think I might have heard some quote somewhere from someone to the effect that one cannot serve both God and money.

    The question in my mind is, where do we quit calling something a church and just start calling it just another American business? So maybe we want these church-like businesses for our social and financial and perhaps child-rearing reasons, but maybe we need to look elsewhere for spiritual realities such as truth or ethical uprightness or such.

  41. One thing that I don’t see getting as much focus as it should (I know, with driscoll there’s so much to talk about):

    mark driscoll is a man who publicly humiliated his wife.

    You know the guy who wants to tell acquaintances about his intimate details, and you try to avoid him. And the whole thing that makes a sexual relationship great is the fact that it’s a secret only shared between two people, out of all the people in the world. MD is a man who wrote a book in which he described how he does it with his wife, and, well, I’ll just skip the rest, but you know…he betrayed his marriage bed by talking about how he and his wife get it on, in exchange for $$$$$ That’s enough right there to make him someone you wouldn’t want to be in the same room as, let alone be ‘shepherded’ by…

  42. Deb, Dee, everybody:

    Internet Monk just posted a commentary on Driscoll’s “apology(TM)” letter and the threads blowing up. At least one Driscoll Fanboy is there Defending his God with every Christianese trick (Bitter, Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged, Bitter, etc.) and things are hopping.

  43. You know, I wouldn’t care if he had actually given it all to the church. It would still be money obtained under false pretenses. The end does not justify the means. And the church is now tainted with the stain too.

  44. I think it’s very, very important to keep track of the financial deeds of megachurch pastors. Even so, this story isn’t just about money. It’s about someone (a pastor) trying to appear wiser and more popular than he may actually be. I think that by itself is concerning enough, though granted, the money factor is important too.

    I know you all know this, of course. It bears repeating.

  45. will f wrote:

    One thing that I don’t see getting as much focus as it should

    Every time I brought it up in the past, I got shouted down for being a prude and not relevant. Now, mostly, I focus on what’s going to get the job done.

    It’s sad, but true.
    Be a terrible husband, no one gives a flip. Grace just needs to joyfully submit.
    Plagiarize the works of other great men and buy yourself a spot on the NYT list, now that’s waaaaay more sinful that oppressing another human being, stealing her voice, and publically humiliating her. After all. She’s just a woman. What a man does in his own house (where he reigns as king) is his own business.

  46. @ Eagle:

    NL: “[2-B] Piper then makes another ‘foundational’ kind of comment, that whatever our conclusion regarding this issue, we must not abandon the scriptural truth that a woman is to submit to her husband.”

    Because we all know that the foundational, scriptural truth that woman is to submit to her husband must never, ever be any sort of priority over the lesser doctrine of upholding justice or defending the weak against the oppression of the strong.

    sheesh.

  47. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Deb, Dee, everybody:
    Internet Monk just posted a commentary on Driscoll’s “apology(TM)” letter and the threads blowing up. At least one Driscoll Fanboy is there Defending his God with every Christianese trick (Bitter, Judge Not Lest Ye Be Judged, Bitter, etc.) and things are hopping.

    And did he mention how bitter the haters were?

  48. @ Mara

    Yes, that is grim, and nothing could be more relevant, what could be more revelatory of the real you than how you treat your spouse, how you wield your power… Here's the punchline: the guy claims to have one on one talks with the Christian God all the time–and look at how Jesus of Nazareth treated women! Every page of the gospels is a scandal, as Jesus insists on treating women as being endlessly valuable, not as mute property of the guy, enraging the macho and the powerful by ascribing endless worth to the oppressed/voiceless… that contrast, what's the word for that….

  49. @ will f:

    And in case you missed this from a long time ago, Grace has been a concern for Charis and me for some time.

    http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2012/01/dear-grace-driscoll.html

    The Deebs have brought it up from time to time. And there have been other places that point out their dysfunctional relationship. But mostly it’s been a lesser issue for everybody else.
    “Grace isn’t complaining. So why are we sticking our noses in where they don’t belong?” is the standard response.

  50. Marie2 wrote:

    Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:
    Eagle wrote:
    *
    Eagle, I take it your calling the pastor of SGM Fairfax a “perp?”
    *
    Personally, I wish you wouldn’t do that. Sen
    Ummmm is this pastor the same guy that has pretty much laughed off claims of sexual abuse in his congregation? I think that is on the same level of heinousness as being a perp…Maybe this was discussed here already? I practically vomit at the thought of someone in such a high leadership position – SGM Fairfax is a pretty large congregation – sweeping criminal behavior like that under the rug….just my humble opinion…

    IF that’s what happened, then it’s quite possibly obstruction of justice or possibly an accessory after the fact to a very heinous crime (the one the crime Jesus said it was better to commit suicide than commit). In either event, that’s a “perp” (again, IF that’s what happened).

  51. An Attorney wrote:

    @ Val:
    So, start a church, set up an LLC, and contract between your church and your LLC; then your church can pay outrageous prices for services and materials provided by your LLC.

    Of course–and I’m preaching to the choir–we both know full well that 501(c)(3) status could be in jeopardy upon such an occurrence.

  52. @ Mara:

    And something else, Will.

    Because of the “Dear Grace Drsicoll” letter Charis guest blogged on my blog and our ongoing conversation about the what it must be like for Grace, I get a lot of hits concerning her.

    The saddest part is that the topic that gets the most hits is
    “Grace Driscoll affair”

    “Grace Driscoll blog” gets less than half that many hits.
    And “Grace Driscoll abuse” gets about one fourth.

    Do you know why?

    Because of Mark Driscoll’s betrayal in their “Real Marriage” book.
    Both Mark and Grace were sexually active teenagers. But because Grace slept with someone else when he and she were first going together, this was reason enough to drag her out and display her ‘sin’ for all the world to see and use the excuse that it is some sort of teaching tool to justify it.

    Driscoll has greatly, greatly dishonored his wife. And barely anyone bats an eye.

  53. Help! I typed in the wrong email address earlier. Now your moderation thing has me down for the wrong email. My fault. But I can’t fix it. Please help.

  54. @ Katie:

    I didn’t read through the responses after your post, but they usually have a team of people helping create their content for them. those people know the pastor’s “voice” and how to write content that sounds like the celebrity pastor. CP’s spend their time as the face of the organization more than they ever spend it being the soul of the org.

  55. @ LawProf:

    I have seen it done, and an IRS audit performed, and no penalty. The prices were high, but they had an explanation, and the actual ownership of the LLC was very hard to trace through a LLP and a trust. And the IRS has been getting heat over its pursuit of religious and similar orgs.

  56. @ sad observer:

    I agree. honestly, it’s the American church’s ability to exist without financial transparency that allows these issues to exist as long as they do before coming to the surface. if mark would have been required to publicly file financials of the church during the year of the RSI deal, it would not have required someone leaking the RSI contract to have the issue brought into question.

  57. Nancy wrote:

    So we are saying that it is OK to set up a “church” as a business, tax exempt of course, as long as that church and its leadership obey the laws of the land?

    The question in my mind is, where do we quit calling something a church and just start calling it just another American business? So maybe we want these church-like businesses for our social and financial and perhaps child-rearing reasons, but maybe we need to look elsewhere for spiritual realities such as truth or ethical uprightness or such.

    Thank you for your comment! You expressed my sentiment. I was reading Acts 20:33-34 where Paul in his farewell to the Ephesian elders said, “I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions.” I think Paul provides an excellent paradigm for pastors to follow.

  58. An Attorney wrote:

    @ LawProf:
    I have seen it done, and an IRS audit performed, and no penalty. The prices were high, but they had an explanation, and the actual ownership of the LLC was very hard to trace through a LLP and a trust. And the IRS has been getting heat over its pursuit of religious and similar orgs.

    Yes the IRS has. It’s too bad Sen. Grassley’s inquiries stalled a few years back. This is a growing cancer.

  59. @ Mara:
    How true. And… I as reading an article on the new documentary on Anita Hill right before i came here.

    The irony is so painfully obvious…

  60. LawProf wrote:

    Marie2 wrote:
    Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:
    Eagle wrote:
    *
    Eagle, I take it your calling the pastor of SGM Fairfax a “perp?”
    *
    Personally, I wish you wouldn’t do that. Sen
    Ummmm is this pastor the same guy that has pretty much laughed off claims of sexual abuse in his congregation? I think that is on the same level of heinousness as being a perp…Maybe this was discussed here already? I practically vomit at the thought of someone in such a high leadership position – SGM Fairfax is a pretty large congregation – sweeping criminal behavior like that under the rug….just my humble opinion…
    IF that’s what happened, then it’s quite possibly obstruction of justice or possibly an accessory after the fact to a very heinous crime (the one the crime Jesus said it was better to commit suicide than commit). In either event, that’s a “perp” (again, IF that’s what happened).

    Ok I’m not trying to be contrary here, but I just want to point out that Mark M had admitted so much in a family meeting, and the audio was on the web at some point, how I wish I had captured that, and while he might not have said enough specifically to make him legally culpable, I see enough evidence from other witnesses to believe that he had full knowledge that many children were unprotected.

    I agree with the other person (an attorney?) that just his system of abuses that he had set up is enough for him to be a perp, even if that does not fit the exact definition of a perp.

    Thank you for attending to legal definitions. I agree with the innocent until guilty idea, unless one is in a state where the laws protect the criminals, and the police are not trained well enough to do their job, and keep investigating, and not believe the word of a clergyman.

    Woody Allen had a chance to clear his name by going to court a long time ago. A judge decided not to carry on a case, because he thought it could hurt a child. I guess police took a clergy person’s word and did not conduct a proper investigation, in order to “protect” a child, perhaps, but I am pretty upset to find so many hoops for the SGM lawyers to sashay through.

  61. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:

    I left a few comments on that thread at Internet Monk.

    It’s remarkable the people who feel you have to be close, personal pals with Driscoll (or some other public figure – note the irony, PUBLIC figure), or else they feel you cannot comment or criticize the person or his public actions and public comments.

    I guess this means I can no longer draw conclusions or voice opinions about controversial historic figures such as Charles Manson, Hitler, and Ted Bundy, because I did not know each man personally. 🙄

  62. A parody (satire?) of the Driscoll apology (contains a small number of racy words):

    All Apologies by Jeff Breakfast

    It’s long but pretty funny and reads like Driscoll’s original apology read to me (ie, insincere and contradictory in spots).

  63. My literary agent, Chip Macgregor, is a big hitter in the business he’s (one of Publishers Weekly Top Ten dealmakers last year) and a very solid Christian. Always blunt, he’s taking a very dim of MD and what he’s pulled (and now is trying to recant). Very dim.

  64. Victorious wrote:

    Comment on Pajama Pages:

    John Helbling:

    As of today, the Result Source website is down and Kevin Small has pulled his Twitter account…interesting.

    http://www.pajamapages.com/mars-hill-responds-to-the-book-marketing-story-and-i-respond-to-their-response/#comment-11692

    Oh, I’m thinking this is strategic. I can’t see someone giving up that market niche willingly. If they’ve figured out how to game the system, there are people who will beat their doors down. Result Source will pop up with a new name, you watch and see.

  65. Daisy wrote:

    A parody (satire?) of the Driscoll apology (contains a small number of racy words):

    All Apologies by Jeff Breakfast

    It’s long but pretty funny and reads like Driscoll’s original apology read to me (ie, insincere and contradictory in spots).

    It’s a satire. I don’t know if Stephanie Drury writes those or if they’re from the pen of her husband, but it’s very much intended as a big-time poke at Driscoll. (Drury lives in Seattle and has a *very firm* opinion about Driscoll.)

  66. Reid wrote:

    they usually have a team of people helping create their content for them. those people know the pastor’s “voice” and how to write content that sounds like the celebrity pastor. CP’s spend their time as the face of the organization more than they ever spend it being the soul of the org.

    Despite my attempts to no longer be naive, you have revealed that I still am. I had no idea others did their work for them. I should have known. There is no humanly possible way for these guys to actually do all that they say they are doing.

    Thank you, Reid. I needed yet another wake-up call.

  67. Peter wrote:

    Question: So why are Newfrontiers silent on these issues and why do they continue to support him and make excuses for his behaviour?
    Answer: A complete mystery………. But the closest I get to this is the theory as to why so called ‘good people’ ignore the actions of leaders behaving in an abusive and immoral fashion. The received wisdom is not that they are brain washed, but that the person gives them something that satisfies their desires so powerfully and sufficiently to overlook the wrong doing.

    Peter, I agree with your line of thinking. I’ve seen it many times over. People want so desperately to be identified with something that is winning, or that’s cool, or is so right it’s above questioning.

    I see people as falling into two categories: 1. The need to belong; and 2. The need to have one’s ego fed. A person can have both motives, but followers have more of #1 and leaders have more of #2, imo.

    I’ve watched perfectly rational, thinking, well-educated people willingly shut out all negative information about a leader in order to maintain that they belong to the “right” church. Or explain away an overt sin of a leader (or pattern of sin,) in order to still be “right” for following him. The closer one is to the inner circles (or thinks they are,) the more their reputation and even their income depends on the leader keeping his position.

    I sum all this up as … Selfish Ambition. Not a good thing.

    The issue is following a man instead of following Jesus Christ.

  68. Pastor Mark tithes his money and he tithes his time. I have no problem with a man that ‘reaps what he sows”.

    God is ultimately the judge not you people and Pastor Mark has repented and will return stronger, holier, and more influential for Jesus than ever.

    God is preparing His bride and Pastor Mark is one of the best men.

  69. Steve Daniels wrote:

    Pastor Mark tithes his money and he tithes his time.

    How do you know this?
    Steve Daniels wrote:

    God is preparing His bride and Pastor Mark is one of the best men.

    You know this how? Explain the “best” and how you chose him over others. Wait…isn’t that judging? You think he is one of the best which means you thing others are not as good which means you are a judge.

    Fascinating….

    If Mark goes public and tries to get us to listen to him and buy his books, you can be darn sure that we are supposed to judge him. You judge people all the time. You have to in order to know how to spend your money

  70. @ Marie2:
    TWW has always believed the victims(both proven and alleged) and the family’s of victims in the SGM situation. We continue to do so.

  71. Off Topic (sort of …)

    An Attorney, LawProf or any other legal professional here who knows this stuff:

    If church members donate funds to their church for a specific purpose (i.e., missions, benevolence, building fund) and those funds go into a restricted account, but later the church decides to move the funds into the general account – never asking the donors for permission nor informing them of the transfer – what recourse, if any, do the donors have?

  72. @ Jenny:

    Stop giving. The other alternative is to prepare a legal agreement (contract) and have the church trustee or other authorized signator sign the document specifically says the money designated by this donor for xx cannot be applied to any other purpose and if not spent for said purpose, must be returned to the donor.

  73. Steve Daniels wrote:

    Pastor Mark tithes his money and he tithes his time. I have no problem with a man that ‘reaps what he sows”.
    God is ultimately the judge not you people and Pastor Mark has repented and will return stronger, holier, and more influential for Jesus than ever.
    God is preparing His bride and Pastor Mark is one of the best men.

    Where in the bible do you get the idea that there will be a ‘best man(men)’… or have you been told the company line of ‘first among equals’? i don’t need to judge… i can accurately determine that your (steve daniels) exegesis and hermeneutics is faulty. people who are marked with a godly sorrow, give the Lord the glory and not themselves nor their ‘church’. john 3:30 “He must increase, but I must decrease”

  74. dee wrote:

    @ Marie2:
    TWW has always believed the victims(both proven and alleged) and the family’s of victims in the SGM situation. We continue to do so.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!!!!

    Has anyone thought about raising the issue on a national level, that there is no appropriate equivalent to the Clery Act?

    Whenever I read the story, I am struck by these statements:

    http://clerycenter.org/our-history
    “In 1990, three years after the organization’s founding, Congress approved the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act. Later renamed in Jeanne’s memory, the Jeanne Clery Act took effect in 1991. ”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clery_Act

    “The law is named for Jeanne Clery, a 19-year-old Lehigh University freshman who was raped and murdered in her campus residence hall in 1986. The backlash against unreported crimes on numerous campuses across the country led to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act. [2] The Clery Act, signed in 1990, was originally known as the Crime Awareness and Campus Security Act.”

    I so wish that there could be a national backlash against unreported crimes, so that clergy people, no matter which state, are held accountable for reporting these kinds of crimes.

    I realize there might already be organizations out there doing something of that nature, so I apologize if this was already addressed. Just putting in a little plug about it.

  75. An Attorney wrote:

    Stop giving.

    This is the response I myself prefer. Others, not so much. Unfortunately.

    The other alternative is to prepare a legal agreement (contract) and have the church trustee or other authorized signator sign the document specifically says the money designated by this donor for xx cannot be applied to any other purpose and if not spent for said purpose, must be returned to the donor.

    Can this action be made retroactive to the start of the donors’ membership, or can it only apply to monies donated going forward from the date of the contract?

  76. @ An Attorney:

    What recourse do church members have who, after respectfully requesting in writing to see their church’s accounting records and board minutes, are told by the elders of the church to basically “buzz off”?

    My inclination is to shake the dust from my feet and move on. Others, not so much. If the church’s by-laws do not restrict access to the records, and the church is in violation of state law governing non-profit corps., should they press the point?

  77. will f wrote:

    One thing that I don’t see getting as much focus as it should (I know, with driscoll there’s so much to talk about):

    mark driscoll is a man who publicly humiliated his wife.

    You know the guy who wants to tell acquaintances about his intimate details, and you try to avoid him. And the whole thing that makes a sexual relationship great is the fact that it’s a secret only shared between two people, out of all the people in the world. MD is a man who wrote a book in which he described how he does it with his wife, and, well, I’ll just skip the rest, but you know…he betrayed his marriage bed by talking about how he and his wife get it on, in exchange for $$$$$ That’s enough right there to make him someone you wouldn’t want to be in the same room as, let alone be ‘shepherded’ by…

    Thank you!! (And please visualize this thanks in bold type, all caps, extra large type.)

  78. I appreciate the posters reminding us that we have a number of examples of Mark Driscoll treating Grace Driscoll abominably in so many ways. What bugs me about Mark’s repentance is that he apparently sees nothing about his relationship with Grace to repent of. Some might say that repentance should be private and I can understand that–except that Mark has used Grace as sermon and book fodder for years. His fanbois have internalized those examples. Consequently, if he’s repented of his treatment of Grace, where he uses her as a THING, not as a human being with her own wants and desire, he needs to do that publicly. Because his fanbois need to know that he’s going to treat at least one woman like a human being.

    But I don’t think Mark Driscoll believes he’s done anything wrong to Grace. And that, people, is the saddest thing.

  79. Steve Daniels wrote:

    God is preparing His bride and Pastor Mark is one of the best men.

    … aha! You almost had me, until this bit – then I realised you’re really Invested Seal!

    Good try, though.

    BUWAHAHAHAHAHA!

  80. @ Peter:
    @ Katie:

    The subject of how these organisations grow, and what attracts people to them, has been much discussed, as I’m sure you both know.

    The story Jonna Petrie tells at Joyful Exiles is familiar to me too. A congregation starts out as a small, vibrant extended family of people; there’s a great sense of faith, comradeship (the word “fellowship” has been overused in the UK to the point where it is now vacuous) and adventure. Everyone is invested and everyone is necessary, and love covers over a multitude of sins.

    In the early days of the church I was part of in Glasgow, it was the same; the CEO did not look like a CEO then. But crucially, even then, he was always somehow set slightly apart: the rules didn’t quite apply to him. People would tolerate his little ways because, after all, he was really gifted and had a great vision. And he was a good speaker (or “an anointed preacher” in the jargon), which counts for a great deal in church circles. 20 years on and he, like Fiscal, has tossed the redundant bodies of many people behind the proverbial bus. I do know is that the sons and daughters of the Kingdom tend to be less shrewd than the people of this world – Jesus knew his stuff – and a lot of people waved him on because they honestly did not believe he could have prideful motives.

    Did he, and Fiscal, set out with single-minded personal ambition from the start? Or did they start out with intentions as good as all the rest of us, only to have their heads turned by the possibilities of fame, success and the corporate lifestyle? I can’t say for certain; the Bible warns us against both, after all. But these things often take root in a growing congregation early on, before enough people have learned shrewdness.

  81. Steve Daniels wrote:

    Steve Daniels on Tue Mar 18, 2014 at 09:39 PM said:

    Pastor Mark tithes his money and he tithes his time. I have no problem with a man that ‘reaps what he sows”.
    God is ultimately the judge not you people and Pastor Mark has repented and will return stronger, holier, and more influential for Jesus than ever.
    God is preparing His bride and Pastor Mark is one of the best men.

    the way it reads to me is that Jesus is coming back for His bride. we are the bride of Christ, uh I think some famous guy said that in the bible. so this best man thing sounds like maybe it could be somebody that is at a wedding but not in a robe, maybe. I just don’t know how so many people can “follow” a guy that preaches such non biblical doctrine. well unless they like having their manly man ego stroked and the fact that they have driscols permission to verbaly, emotionally and/or sexually abuse their wives. some men really get off on that, none of them are Christians though.

  82. Nice Kekbulb wrote:

    Steve Daniels wrote:
    God is preparing His bride and Pastor Mark is one of the best men.
    … aha! You almost had me, until this bit – then I realised you’re really Invested Seal!
    Good try, though.
    BUWAHAHAHAHAHA!

    oh.my.word.Nick. Are you one of those folks who can do cryptic crosswords in ten minutes? Arrrggghhhh ! Now to remember the difference between parody and satire, because I thought Steve Daniels’ comment was one of them…

  83. Banner at the top says Dee & Deb are out of pocket. Does this mean something else in the US? – as here it means you are broke/can’t meet your expenses. Can I/we make a contribution towards costs?

  84. @ Haitch:
    Too funny-aroudn here it means you are very busy and limited in your ability to interact. However, you can send the money directly to me. There are these shoes….

  85. An Attorney wrote:

    Stop giving. The other alternative is to prepare a legal agreement (contract) and have the church trustee or other authorized signator sign the document specifically says the money designated by this donor for xx cannot be applied to any other purpose and if not spent for said purpose, must be returned to the donor.

    That is a good piece of advice. I need to figure out how to get this information out to people: maybe a short post.

  86. Nice Kekbukb

    I confess. I don’t understand. What is invested seal. Caffeine expected to peak in about 1 hour and I might be firing on all cylinders at that time.

  87. @ will f:
    Many of you have commented on the plight of Grace. I, too, have found his treatment of her troubling. I have no idea what goes on behind closed doors but what he has written and stated publicly in awful.

    His treatment of her was worrisome, even back before they were married. He recounts that Grace transferred to a college about 5 hours away (I am going from memory). She forgot to call him when she arrived. he drove 5 hours just to check on her and then drove back.

    On another occasion, he went around her dorm, pounding on doors and threatening anyone who might take an interest in her.

    He also claims to filter her emails himself and then he lets her see the ones that he approves.

    All of these he has reported himself as an example of “I’m a wonderful guy.” That scares me even more. He is obviously deluded.

    Can we say RED FLAG? Paranoia, jealousy, control …..Combine this with his ridiculous public persona and you have cause for concern. This is a guy who is leading a church!!!!

    Sometimes I wonder if his security team is there to protect his family or to keep an eye on them, if you catch my drift

  88. @ Marie2:
    I am so grateful that Boz Tchvidjian and GRACE have appeared on the scene. I think they are the ones who can have an impact.

  89. @ Haitch:

    I see my alter-ego has been up to no good in my absence. I can’t speak for him/it (alter-egos are a bit funny that way) but I certainly like cryptic crosswords.

    I realise you probably weren’t actually asking, but… The line between parody and satire can be a fine one, and the two terms are not mutually exclusive. In brief, parody involves exaggerating certain characteristics of the target for humorous effect. A good example is Rowan Atkinson pretending to be a concert pianist – it’s here on YouTube. Satire involves using humour (usually rather dark humour at that) to make a moral or political point about the target.

    More often than not, satire also involves parody. In fact, Poe’s Law is all about how difficult it is to satirise fundamentalism, because much of it is so extreme that it is beyond parody. Hence, the comment by “Steve Daniels” and “Chuck” elicit responses here on TWW and I sometimes have to remind myself not to take them seriously.

  90. In other news, a 200-lb pig nicknamed Fireman Ham * has retired from Avon Fire & Rescue Service after becoming too friendly and accustomed to people to be good at training firemen to rescue trapped and frightened animals. (He just isn’t frightened in the training sessions!)

    * For our non-UK cousins, this is a play on a well-known UK children’s TV character called “Fireman Sam”.

  91. @ Mara:

    mara, thank you for informing me of your website. There is a lot of valuable stuff on there, you are doing something important.

  92. Katie wrote:

    I’ve watched perfectly rational, thinking, well-educated people willingly shut out all negative information about a leader in order to maintain that they belong to the “right” church. Or explain away an overt sin of a leader (or pattern of sin,) in order to still be “right” for following him. The closer one is to the inner circles (or thinks they are,) the more their reputation and even their income depends on the leader keeping his position.

    C.S.Lewis had an entire essay on this subject, “The Lure of the Inner Ring”.

  93. Katie wrote:

    The issue is following a man instead of following Jesus Christ.

    People prefer darkness for a lot of reasons, all of which reasons stand between them and the freedom they might otherwise have.

  94. I realize this is pointless, but I just wanted to link to a Challies (who I know is hated around here) about “Outrage Porn.” I know the writers and commenters here think they’re doing the Lord’s work, but you simply are not. The articles here do nothing but create straw man arguments and make illogical fallacies and then argue against them. Just like this article. You quote the Ananias and Sapphria story from Acts as your basis for judgment, but then add this:

    “Do not misunderstand me. I am not accusing Mark Driscoll of doing anything illegal with his money management. I don’t know if he is or isn’t. However, I am saying that there is much more to be discussed before giving him a pass of giving it “all” to the church.”

    Then what is the point of this article? You spend thousands of words on this site attacking him and then say something generic like “there is much more to be discussed.” Then the acolytes here jump in with their pitchforks and celebrate it. You’re sniping and lighting fires against someone you don’t like. If you don’t like him, that’s fine, but using Scripture to condemn him routinely is despicable.

    Yes, it’s easy to lump me in as a Driscoll supporter (I’m not, I’m a conservative Baptist from east Texas) because that way, you don’t have to look at yourself or your actions. Again, if you don’t like him or the way he handles his business and church leadership, that’s fine. The people at that church need to stop being so afraid and handle it. Leave and go somewhere else. Quit the job and go do something else. It’s not the end of the world. Why continue working or attending somewhere that you obviously disagree with?

    Back to my original reason for posting here. I know Challies is not liked here for being a Calvinist, but this article has nothing to do with TULIP. It does use the phrase “porn” a few times, so I’m sure many of you will focus on that and completely ignore what it’s saying. Are you brave enough to read it objectively? Since no one probably will, I’ll include this one paragraph anyway:

    “A new term is entering the lexicon to describe this phenomenon. They call it outrage porn. Like pornography, this kind of outrage is ultimately self-centered and self-gratifying. One person calls it “self-gratification through feigned indignation.” Even when it isn’t feigned, there is still that element of selfishness, of self-pleasure, in it. The outrage isn’t for them, it’s for us. We feel better for having done it, for having participated in it. It is expiating in a sick sense. With the outrage behind me, I am satisfied that I have done my bit, and now I can move on to the next thing. Expressing outrage is almost a kind of brand loyalty—we are outraged together in this common cause.”

    http://www.challies.com/articles/outrage-porn-and-the-christian-reader

  95. dee wrote:

    . I have no idea what goes on behind closed doors but what he has written and stated publicly in awful.

    Another thing to remember.
    If Driscoll felt comfortable enough to tell a bunch of women he didn’t know in a service in Scotland that Jesus COMMANDS them to perform OS on their husbands, what the heck (WTH) was he telling Grace in the privacy of their own bedroom? What sort of commands from Jesus was he telling Grace about? How often was he imploring her to obey Jesus and service him in whatever capacity that he demanded? What sort of angry-young-prophet measures did he use to relay these commands? With sort of force, emotional and/or spiritual and/or physical did he use make her take these commands as seriously as he wanted her to?

    It’s disgusting that few people picked up on this.
    I’m glad he got caught with the plagiarism and NYT list stuff.
    But I’m sorry that his misogyny of all women and mistreatment of his wife are so unimportant to the much of churchdom. People should have been all over his dysfunctional relationship with his wife like stink on poo. But then again, with such ridiculous groups like CBMW and people like Piper being held up as paragons of virtue and true biblical Christianity, what was I supposed to expect?

  96. Jeff Q wrote:

    I know the writers and commenters here think they’re doing the Lord’s work, but you simply are not. The articles here do nothing but create straw man arguments and make illogical fallacies and then argue against them.

    Wow. What a way to sweep away some very real and substantiated concerns with a flick of a few fancy sounding words that I don’t think you even grasp let alone know how to apply.

  97. mot@ Jeff Q:

    Sorry but I could not get past your condemnation of anyone who thinks different than you. Do you feel better now?

  98. Jenny wrote:

    @ An Attorney:

    What recourse do church members have who, after respectfully requesting in writing to see their church’s accounting records and board minutes, are told by the elders of the church to basically “buzz off”?

    My inclination is to shake the dust from my feet and move on. Others, not so much. If the church’s by-laws do not restrict access to the records, and the church is in violation of state law governing non-profit corps., should they press the point?

    I may be wrong in my understanding (please correct me if I am), but I thought that if a non-profit solicits donations for a particular purpose, they are *legally obligated* to spend it for exactly those purposes, and if they don’t, they could get in trouble with the IRS. I understood that giving to general funds is not restricted, giving to specific campaigns is.

    So, if (as in the case Jenny talks about) the ruling board of a non-profit church refuses to be transparent about revealing budget and expenditures, then they cannot/will not confirm how solicited funds were spent. Is this sufficient cause for a donor to go to the IRS to ask them to conduct an audit because the church will not confirm that solicited funds were spent as advertised?

    It seems extreme, but then, what’s a donor to do? What other recourse do they have beyond just stop giving? That may be an absolutely legitimate solution for their own concerns, but it does little to intervene in an abusive system that will otherwise keep doing the same to other donors.

    A non-profit can’t take in funds under their tax-exempt status and then not obey the laws for tax-exempt non-profits … but then, how many other legal issues (like laws for mandatory clergy reporting of known/suspected child abuse) do churches try to skirt around while trying to benefit from the same legal system?

  99. Mara wrote:

    I’m glad he got caught with the plagiarism and NYT list stuff.
    But I’m sorry that his misogyny of all women and mistreatment of his wife are so unimportant to the much of churchdom. People should have been all over his dysfunctional relationship with his wife like stink on poo. But then again, with such ridiculous groups like CBMW and people like Piper being held up as paragons of virtue and true biblical Christianity, what was I supposed to expect?

    Bravo, Mara! Well said! There is so much misogyny in churches today disguised as “protection” that I can’t understand the lack of outrage by women. The only reason I can come up with is that women are comfortable with bad treatment having endured it for so long. It has become “natural” to expect more of the same.

  100. Jeff Q wrote:

    Then what is the point of this article? You spend thousands of words on this site attacking him and then say something generic like “there is much more to be discussed.” Then the acolytes here jump in with their pitchforks and celebrate it. You’re sniping and lighting fires against someone you don’t like. If you don’t like him, that’s fine, but using Scripture to condemn him routinely is despicable.

    First off, nice use of word-pictures to paint us and what we are doing as far more evil than what it is. Talk about a HUGE straw man ploy on your part. Nice picture. Wrong and over-the-top application.

    I want Mark Driscoll to stop hurting people and to stop hurting the cause of Christ. And I’m using my words to bring attention to his false teachings, underhanded and unethical business practices, and boorish/worldly leadership skills. Whether you like Driscoll or not, you are coming to the defense of an out-of-control leader who finally got caught and who is getting his due. You reap what you sow. He sowed outrageous words and behavior. He is reaping the outrage he deserves. (We’ll get to this “outrage porn” in a bit. Hold onto your hiney.)

    One way that I come against his false teaching is to use scripture to prove it. How can you even call that despicable. What am I supposed to use to fight false doctrine?

    Get a clue. Mark has waged war on the church with his he-man doctrine and gorilla marketing. Me fighting back and using scripture is not despicable. It’s the right thing to do.

  101. Jeff Q wrote:

    I know Challies is not liked here for being a Calvinist,

    No, Challies is not liked here because he’s an uncritical fanboy of the neo-Cal celebrity preachers who, in his eyes, can do no wrong.

  102. @ Jeff Q:
    Welcome to TWW.

    Oh dear, you did not start off very well. Let me make an assumption. You are either here to chastise us and go away feeling like “I told them” or you are here to change the hearts and minds who read here. I surely hope it is the latter. In that vein, let me show you how to do it better.

    Jeff Q wrote:

    Then what is the point of this article?

    I think it is clear. They said they gave it all and they didn’t. That was clearly not celebrated. Now, look at Driscoll. He claims he gave “all” of his proceeds to the church? Did he? Are we supposed to take what he says sat “face value?” He has made a living as a public persona. So, we get to look at what he says in public. BTW, I assume you read the entire post about CRUTS. However, you did not mention it. If you had, you should have mentioned it.

    Jeff Q wrote:

    using Scripture to condemn him routinely is despicable.

    I thought we are supposed to examine everything in light of Scripture.

    Jeff Q wrote:

    a Challies (who I know is hated around here)

    Hated? OK-here is where you lost us. Unfortunately it is right at the start. Perhaps you do not know this but there is a ho-hum tactic of accusing people who bring up inconvenient truth to be labeled as haters and bitter. So, I give you some props for avoiding bitter. But, when you says we “hate” you better darn well explain yourself.

    You do not know our motivation and you cannot judge our hearts in this matter unless you have been promoted to God status. I don’t like some of Challies pronouncements but it hardly constitutes hatred. So, if you wish to be heard, give an example of our “hate” or cut it out.

    Jeff Q wrote:

    The outrage isn’t for them

    Did God give you a vision explaining our outrage? If not, be careful. We are outraged by child sex abuse and pastors who cover it up or who support those who cover it up. We are outraged by churches that throw good people like Bent Meyer and Paul Petry under the bus, threatening to punch them out at the same time. (Mark’s words.) Our blog demonstrates a consistent pattern of standing up for victims and you would know that if you actually took the time to get to know us.

    In fact, the reason that I find your comment disturbing is that you did not ONCE mention anyone hurt by Mark Driscoll or CJ Mahaney(someone Challies likes). I have said this before and I will say it again because you obviously did not take any time to really read this blog in order to understand us. I bet you only read a couple of posts and are outraged. (It cuts both ways).

    Years ago, Barbara Dorris of SNAP told us that in all things to always remember the victims. They are to come first. Such an understanding is at the bottom of everything that we write.

    So, next time, deep six the hatred nonsense, mention some victims, show some empathy and maybe we will take your comment more seriously.

    Since you are in east Texas, are you a member or pastor of the Acts 29 church in Tyler? That is the only one in the east Texas area with which I am familiar. I like Tyler. We considered a job there at one time.

  103. @ Jeff Q:

    That is a good article by Challies. He has been balanced in his approach and is raising legitimate issues about expressed outrage. There are a couple of things, though, that need further consideration. He repeatedly uses the term "outrage" and seems to be saying that any and all protest or opposition could rightly be described by the word "outrage." Not so. Outrage is only one spot on a continuum which would include anger, disappointment, concern, frustration and such. Simply calling everything "outrage" is too simplistic to adequately address his concerns (and I did not say his outrage, you note.)

    The other thing that is a bother about his article is that he says that excessive use of outrage about every little thing prevents people from focusing on the things that really matter. That is certainly a good observation. But who is going to determine what things really matter? What may matter hugely to some woman married to a verbally abusive husband who uses some statement by some teachers as an excuse, may not be that much of a deal to someone who does not have that sort of problem. Someone who feels that they have been financially defrauded in some dealing with some church might find money matters of utmost importance while others may not even understand what all the fuss is about.

    Tim may have started off with a good observation, but he needs to flush it out a little bit before it has much useful impact on how people feel and do.

  104. Jeff Q wrote:

    Back to my original reason for posting here. I know Challies is not liked here for being a Calvinist, but this article has nothing to do with TULIP. It does use the phrase “porn” a few times, so I’m sure many of you will focus on that and completely ignore what it’s saying. Are you brave enough to read it objectively? Since no one probably will, I’ll include this one paragraph anyway:

    Me not liking Challies had nothing to do with Calvinism and everything to do with him not even allowing women to read scripture out loud in the congregation.

    Now that I’ve cleared that up with you, I’ll address the use of “porn” for anything other than actual porn.

    Men like to do this to direct attention away from the very real cancer of porn use by men, and increasingly by women, in the church.
    Some men are honest about actual porn use being bad and not something Christian men should do. But even a lot of those honest men have a very hard time accepting how bad and how deep this cancer really is in the body of Christ.

    Some men try to direct people’s attention (their own and others) away from this truly dark, mostly masculine, and pervasive sin in the body of Christ. And they do so by focusing on the sins of women.

    Adam did it before God concerning Eve. It’s natural of the fallen masculine nature.

    So, to make people stand in utter abhorrence of all these ghastly feminine sins, they equate it to porn.

    I’ve heard the sin of gossip in women being call “porn for women”, trying to make gossip an exclusively female sin (even though men are usually equally guilty) and making it as bad as porn.

    It’s not as bad, but many of these men like to think so when women do it.

    So, YES. I have a terrible repulsion when ANY man tries to use the term “porn” in cutting the feet out from under the arguments of other people.
    It is an inflammatory word used to shut down conversations that need to happen to get the Church back on the straight and narrow.

    The church has been getting off track with Driscoll types leading the way.
    Their leadership must be questioned and we all need to reorient back to what Jesus really taught.
    Using the word “porn” as a conversation stopper is wrong and a terrible misuse of the word.

  105. @ Jeff Q:

    So, I take it outrage is off-limits for Christians in favor of a passive, hands-off stance.

    “God can handle it.” In spite of God’s omnipotence, lives are destroyed anyway when human beings are passive in the face of abuse, corruption, atrocity, injustice, etc.

    Mr. Driscoll has huge influence and an abusive message and method that destroys people. Antagonism towards women. Insults to women. Turns women into user-friendly appliances. Open mockery of any man who doesn’t fit his he-man stereotype. Ruthless in running his empire.

    His influence finds its way into churches everywhere. I have been astonished and amazed to see it creeping in to even my church.

    There is only one reason for this: his peers have stood impotently by and passively let it happen.

  106. Jeff Q wrote:

    I realize this is pointless,

    What’s pointless? Do you want to control people’s opinions? Of course that is pointless. I cannot control my husband’s opinions.

    I found the analysis to be extremely helpful. I know someone who has a dynamic ministry but he almost worships MD by quoting him all the time. This website has been helpful in giving me discernment to support that well-meaning gentleman from a distance. I will likely give to his ministry, but not spend tons of time there.

    My quota of controlling, egotistical leaders is full.

  107. Mara wrote:

    Driscoll felt comfortable enough to tell a bunch of women he didn’t know in a service in Scotland that Jesus COMMANDS them to perform OS on their husbands…It’s disgusting that few people picked up on this.

    That sermon was scrubbed from the internet and no one could access it, until now.

    Some clever researcher was able to obtain the audio of the sermon and recently posted it on YouTube. He wrote, “Edinburgh, Scotland on November 18,2007. He had it scrubbed off the internet, and I think you’ll see why. Without a public acknowledgement or apology, he removed it from all his websites, and consecutively had it removed from any blog that was hosting it, even the church where it was original recorded in.”

    LINK: http://youtu.be/J8sNVDyW-ws

    No mention of this in his recent “apology” either.

  108. @ Nancy:

    Did you mean “flesh it out” or as printed “flush it out”?

    FWIW “flush it out” works just as well for me and maybe it was intended 🙂

  109. Mara wrote:

    I want Mark Driscoll to stop hurting people and to stop hurting the cause of Christ. And I’m using my words to bring attention to his false teachings, underhanded and unethical business practices, and boorish/worldly leadership skills. Whether you like Driscoll or not, you are coming to the defense of an out-of-control leader who finally got caught and who is getting his due. You reap what you sow. He sowed outrageous words and behavior. He is reaping the outrage he deserves.

    Bravo again! You’re right on again!

  110. @ Victorious:

    It’s not comforting to see how many men use the pulpit to bring ungodly teachings to the Church and other preachers/teachers/writers won’t say anything to them. BUT when the folks in the pews say, “Hey, what is he preaching and teaching in the name of God?” they are told they have no business saying anything.

    Maybe the dried bones are rising up to speak . . .

  111. Jeff Q wrote:

    “A new term is entering the lexicon to describe this phenomenon. They call it outrage porn. Like pornography, this kind of outrage is ultimately self-centered and self-gratifying. One person calls it “self-gratification through feigned indignation.” Even when it isn’t feigned, there is still that element of selfishness, of self-pleasure, in it. The outrage isn’t for them, it’s for us. We feel better for having done it, for having participated in it. It is expiating in a sick sense. With the outrage behind me, I am satisfied that I have done my bit, and now I can move on to the next thing. Expressing outrage is almost a kind of brand loyalty—we are outraged together in this common cause.”

    So.
    When Jesus made a whip and cleared out the temple, was He engaging the sin of “outrage porn” or was his anger justified?
    When Jesus called out the Pharisees concerning their sins, was that also outrage porn?

    When we see injustice, people being hurt, are we not allowed to express any form outrage for fear of committing this new sin, “outrage porn”?

    When people use God’s name in vain to proclaim “Thus saith the Lord” in order to control other people and ultimately destroy those peoples faith in God, none of my anger and outcry over that can be considered righteous indignation? Because of this cutesy, newfangled term, some guy in some office somewhere or behind some pulpit who doesn’t agree with me, he can just wave his hand and accuse me of “outrage porn” and all the sudden my concerns don’t have to be taken seriously or even considered?

    And what about all the voiceless victims that have had their voices stolen by wayward preachers like Driscoll. Many don’t even know how to speak for themselves because all their self-expression has been squashed by boorish leaders who want to control everything. Who will speak for them?

    I think Challies WANTS the voiceless victims to stay voiceless. He doesn’t want the dirty truths concerning Driscoll and similar leaders to come out. He wants it to remain conveniently buried so that business can continue as usual.

    And in order shut people up, Driscoll fanboys, including Challies. have neatly labeled my outrage as a sin to be repented from rather than a call for change, thereby releasing the sinning preachers from having to pursue true repentance.

    How convenient.
    Yep. I’m not impressed. It’s business as usual by the spin doctors.

  112. The more I examine the letter the more struck I am by its arrogance. Driscoll must think he’s a genius of Neuro-Linguistic Programming. The unsubtle repetition of the “father” thing renders any humble apology moot:

    “I continue to find great joy in teaching the Bible every week to people I have grown to love with a father’s affection.”

    “In the last year or two, I have been deeply convicted by God that my angry-young-prophet days are over, to be replaced by a helpful, Bible-teaching spiritual father.”

    (God has convicted me into believing that I deserve even more deference than I already receive!)

    “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.”

    (Never mind that I myself appoint that pastoral authority.)

    ““For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” As I get older, I am seeking to increasingly love our people as I do my own children in order for our church to be a great family, because of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

    (Remember that spiritually you are mere children compared to me, no matter what I do.)

    “With the Father’s affection”

    (I’m fatherly like God is fatherly. You’re supposed to respect me like you respect Him.)

    There is zero acknowledgment that he need do anything to earn this lofty role. All he has to do is say the magic words, and so mote it be! The repeated message is “I’m done being that old guy, now I’m this new guy and you should accept it. God gave me this job, remember?” It’s a Doug Wilson-level look-humble-while-conceding-nothing snow job, the kind the organized church games well-meaning Christians into passively accepting in the spirit of love and forgiveness.

    As someone said on another blog:

    “Well, he told you right up front he’s going to be playing a new “role”, so if you buy into that one any more than the last one which he is now apologizing for, then shame on YOU.

    Why is it we Christians think everyone gets everything they want if they apologize? If a mechanic can’t fix my brakes after a couple tries and I’m continually wrecking my car because of it, he’s welcome to keep his little half baked shop open in case any gullible rubes happen by, but I’m not going there and I’m going to warn my friends and family.”

    Until the organized churches recognize that their structures attract and reward sociopathic leaders, the ranks of the “nones” and fallen away will only grow. That’s what the “Don’t throw stones” crowd really needs to grasp. Many of them mean well, but their passive acceptance of toxic authority figures is harming, not helping the Body of Christ.

  113. @ elastigirl:

    Jeff Q,

    a final thought: Christian powerbrokers have erred on the side of passivity. The underlings are the ones who have paid the price for this. So, some are erring on the side of aggression….and that’s the issue???

  114. Victorious wrote:

    Mara wrote:
    I want Mark Driscoll to stop hurting people and to stop hurting the cause of Christ. And I’m using my words to bring attention to his false teachings, underhanded and unethical business practices, and boorish/worldly leadership skills. Whether you like Driscoll or not, you are coming to the defense of an out-of-control leader who finally got caught and who is getting his due. You reap what you sow. He sowed outrageous words and behavior. He is reaping the outrage he deserves.
    Bravo again! You’re right on again!

    I guess this is the kind of thing that bothers me and Challies’ outrage article seemed to be right on. There seems to be so much joy in knocking him or others down a few pegs. It doesn’t seem to be based in any kind of righteous indignation or anything like that. If it’s SGM/Mahaney thing, the church leadership structure and local authorities should handle it (and I’m pretty sure that’s what happened.) Blogging and commenting repeatedly to help pile the dirt on the grave just seems wrong to me.

    Regarding Driscoll…he released a statement to his church repenting of some of the things he’s accused of. But I wonder if that would satisfy anyone here? Or would it be called a half-apology, self serving, etc.?

    And no, I don’t attend the Acts 29 church in Tyler.

  115. Kevin DeYoung’s TGC post on celebrity pastors now exceeds 80 comments. I wonder how much longer the folks at TGC will let the comments stay open.

  116. Jeff Q wrote:

    There seems to be so much joy in knocking him or others down a few pegs. It doesn’t seem to be based in any kind of righteous indignation or anything like that.

    It’s all fine and dandy for you to define and dismiss me like this.

    I suppose it makes you feel better and keeps you from having to face the fallout from the Driscoll Nukes.

    Just know that defining me and dismissing me as you so easily do does not make you right and me wrong. It just appeases your conscience and makes it so you don’t have to examine how bad thing have really gotten. It keeps you from having to feel any of the pain of the victims and learning how to have empathy for those wronged.

    Hide your head in the sand, young pup. And hope none of this comes back to bite you.

  117. Just stopping by to offer a standing ovation for yet another wonderful article.

    You’re doing a great work here and making a tremendous difference in exposing the frauds while taking a stand for real Christianity.

    I’ve been a fan for quite some time. Keep the faith and God bless.

    🙂

  118. @ dee:

    Wow, I’ve never heard the particulars that you’ve listed, just general comments. If these are true, then HUG’s diagnosis of narcissistic sociopath might be accurate. That’s scary.

  119. Jeff Q wrote:

    There seems to be so much joy in knocking him or others down a few pegs. It doesn’t seem to be based in any kind of righteous indignation or anything like that.

    Unfruitful deeds must be exposed to the light. Over and over we are cautioned to “beware” of those who come in sheep’s clothing but are actually ravenous wolves. They devour sheep; throw them under the bus; marginalize them; and deceive the righteous by twisting scripture in an effort to arrive at their hidden agenda.

    ….is that indignation righteous enough for you?

  120. @Mara. I do not intend any personal offense, just calling out something I see. I’m definitely not burying my head in the sand, otherwise why would I jump into this deep water? I’ve lurked around this site for a while.

    @BeenThere…are you implying that responding to comments is hypocritical?

    @elastigirl.. I’m not sure which power brokers you are referring to, but I believe a local church (or it’s denominational structure) should handle these issues. I don’t think that just because someone is popular or has a large following, that they have to publicly call out everyone for everything.

    @Marie2.. by pointless, I wasn’t giving anyone the benefit of the doubt to read the article to which I linked and see some similarities with the comment section on this site.

  121. Jeff Q wrote:

    Regarding Driscoll…he released a statement to his church repenting of some of the things he’s accused of. But I wonder if that would satisfy anyone here? Or would it be called a half-apology, self serving, etc.?

    Here is what his apology looks like to those he has hurt and those watching him give out fake apologies before.

    https://www.facebook.com/notes/jeff-breakfast/all-apologies/813136282047672

    I will believe in Driscoll’s “Repentance” when I see the actions of repentance go along with it.

    And no, just taking cover is not the right kind of action.

    If and when I see a Zaccheaus kind of repentance, THEN I will rejoice. Because THEN I will know that the wayward pastor has finally come home.

    Driscoll has issued these apologies in the past. Then he’s gone right back to business as usual. I’ve heard his empty words before. I’m ready to see some real action behind them this time. And yes, THEN I will rejoice.

    Sorry that you think I’m rejoicing now in his unrighteousness.
    I’m not. I’m rejoicing in the truth.
    I Corinthians 13
    (how despicable of me to use scripture.)

  122. @Victorious…I guess we have a difference of opinion in how to go about exposing these things. Seems like the church leadership should be the one to handle it. The membership of that church doesn’t need websites repeatedly trashing their church and it’s leaders. It needs prayer. It needs the men and women in power to seek the Lord and handle it.

  123. dee wrote:

    His treatment of her was worrisome, even back before they were married. He recounts that Grace transferred to a college about 5 hours away (I am going from memory). She forgot to call him when she arrived. he drove 5 hours just to check on her and then drove back.

    I don’t read this as MD was “worried.” I read this as MD was teaching Grace a lesson that she’d better do what she’s supposed to do, in a timely manner. He appears to treat her like a child.

  124. Jeff Q wrote:

    I do not intend any personal offense, just calling out something I see. I’m definitely not burying my head in the sand, otherwise why would I jump into this deep water? I’ve lurked around this site for a while.

    I’ll accept this for what it is and will try not to be personally offended.

    But know that I do not accept the definitions of sin that Challies has set up. There may be a self-serving level of outrage that is sinful. But that is not the majority of what is going on here. And calling it porn is dishonest.

    The definitions put forth by Challies are far too conveniently used to shut up people who disagree with him and who can see through Driscoll façade.

  125. Jeff Q wrote:

    I guess we have a difference of opinion in how to go about exposing these things. Seems like the church leadership should be the one to handle it.

    The ones that try to deal with these things have been “thrown under the bus” according to Mark Driscoll. Have you not heard his tirade on how he hopes the “pile” will grow to a “mountain” behind the bus? He fired the two elders who tried to deal with problems in the church right after that sermon. If not, you can listen to this 2.5 min. video here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Iz5nDJy1FA

  126. Jeff Q wrote:

    Seems like the church leadership should be the one to handle it.

    BUT THEY AREN’T

    The ones who tried got thrown under the bus.
    Look up Joyful Exiles.
    And “yes men” were put in their places.

    And they couldn’t look for help from other pastors outside the church.
    They cover each others’ sins and throw the sheep to the wolves.
    When trouble at Mars Hill reached critical mass, people appealed to John Piper to help since Driscoll respected him. Piper wouldn’t trouble himself with it. Instead he goes on record as a supporter of Driscoll.

  127. Jeff Q wrote:

    The membership of that church doesn’t need websites repeatedly trashing their church and it’s leaders. It needs prayer.

    If the members are blinded to the truth of who Driscoll is, yes, they need people pointing it out.

    And what about all the former members who have had their voices stolen and/or been thrown under the bus? You don’t think they need somewhere to go to figure out what the heck happened to them? You don’t think they need somewhere to go to validate them and help them to see that, having your voice stolen and being thrown under the bus WASN’T your fault. It was leadership run amuck. Find your voice. Speak out. And get healed.

    The walking wounded created by the Mars Hill Machine if far bigger than Challies is willing to admit.
    I hope that you will open your eyes and see the wasteland of spiritual carnage that Driscoll’s climb to fame has produced.

    Perhaps you will, perhaps you won’t. But don’t be so quick to judge those who have had enough and are crying out for justice (or for it to at least just STOP).

  128. @ Jenny:

    probably only from the time of the notice to the future, not to the past. But if you were a significant donor to the entity, say 10% of the revenue, perhaps as little as 5%, you could say to them, look, if you want another nickel from me, put my designated offering of $xxx from date as I directed, or you get no more from me.

  129. @ Jenny:

    You could get legal. You could leave. You could stop giving. If enough people say, no more donations until you publish truthful accounting, I think they would get the idea. Of course, you could all leave and start your own entity.

  130. Jeff Q wrote:

    It needs the men and women in power to seek the Lord and handle it.

    TedS. wrote:

    Some clever researcher was able to obtain the audio of the sermon and recently posted it on YouTube.

    I’m going to have to get there sometime today.
    But now I’m headed out.
    (And Jeff Q. said, “Amen!”)

  131. Jeff Q wrote:

    @Victorious…I guess we have a difference of opinion in how to go about exposing these things. Seems like the church leadership should be the one to handle it. The membership of that church doesn’t need websites repeatedly trashing their church and it’s leaders. It needs prayer. It needs the men and women in power to seek the Lord and handle it.

    “It needs the men and women in power to seek the Lord and handle it.” First off, there are no women in power in MD’s world. None(.) I don’t know that he would receive any kind of correction from a woman, even his wife. Secondly, the need to “use power” at all points to serious issues in Christendom. Paul never invoked the phrase “in power” to settle anything in churches.

  132. I realize I have backed myself into defending Driscoll and that certainly wasn’t my intention. My intention was to ask if the internet outrage culture is healthy or not.

  133. Jeff Q wrote:

    @BeenThere…are you implying that responding to comments is hypocritical?

    It is if you are complaining about others doing the same, luv.

  134. @ Jeff Q:

    Welcome to TWW.

    I'm going to make a prediction. One day the scales will fall off your eyes, and you will realize that the TWW community has correctly assessed Mark Driscoll and his so-called ministry.

    Tragically, he had caused far more harm than good to the Christian community. I am praying for those who have been hurt by Driscoll.

  135. Jeff Q wrote:

    My intention was to ask if the internet outrage culture is healthy or not.

    Had more time that I thought.

    I have seen some internet outrage over all sorts of thing that was not healthy.
    I have seen some that made mountains out of molehills or gotten angry over the wrong things.
    I’m sure there are some forms of outrage, both on the internet and off that are wrong and not healthy.

    Where you and Challies get it wrong it this:
    There ARE things worth being outraged for. And it’s not unhealthy. It’s healing for some who have found themselves under the bus.
    Driscoll IS worth it and what he has done IS worth it the outrage.

    You are free to disagree.

  136. @ Deb:

    A certain word that I will not mention has thrown one of my comments to Jeff in moderation, boom, boom.

    I would like him to see it because he said he wasn’t trying to offend and I told him I would try not to be.

  137. Nancy wrote:

    Katie wrote:
    The issue is following a man instead of following Jesus Christ.
    People prefer darkness for a lot of reasons, all of which reasons stand between them and the freedom they might otherwise have.

    I agree; but while following the man, one cannot see it. It’s always seen as following Jesus; and the feeding of the ego of being in or near the inner circle (real or imagined,) gives the impression that one is walking in the Light and not darkness. My guess is that being near the “cool” people makes people feel good about themselves, which is so often referred to as “being blessed.” This is what I think confuses people into thinking they are on the right track by defending, pleasing, and sacrificing for the leader.

  138. Jeff Q wrote:

    My intention was to ask if the internet outrage culture is healthy or not.

    Yes, for many it’s the only voice they are allowed. Additionally, if the erroneous teachings and attitudes are publicly posted, then the corrections must be publicly posted in an effort to curb further abuse and show compassion and support for the victims of that abuse.

  139. Bridget wrote:

    @ Katie:
    He treated her like he owned her.

    Yes. Maybe I should send MD a ticket to the movie “12 Years a Slave” and see if that enlightens him?

    My last pastor treated his wife this way. She finally gave up her opinions, her friends, her family, her ambitions and all her time. The one thing she gets is money. She used to have the kids, but he’s successfully been winning them over and minimizing her value as a mom. He allows her to lead worship so she can feel like a rock star, but refuses to allow her to go beyond that in any way.

    This former pastor of mine reminds me of Fiscal in sooo many ways. He has made many public statements that cast his wife as the sinner in the relationship. Anytime he’s been forced to admit any failure, he has subtly and overtly blamed her for it; including his dalliances with 4 other women. While he was out galavanting for months with other women in another state, lying to the church about what he was doing, he demanded that his wife remain busy as the Women’s Ministry Leader and the Worship Leader. All the while he filed for divorce and told his wife to keep her mouth shut about it. She dutifully obeyed. THAT is not a woman who is alive. She’s a robot and dead inside.

    Can you imagine how Grace is? She’s in the big spotlight. If she makes one wrong move, she could lose her income, and who knows what MD would do to her if she tried to stand up to him? For her to follow Jesus instead of following her husband, it would take a deep relationship with God that supersedes her need for safety and comfort. That would take some extraordinary faith.

  140. Mara wrote:

    And in order shut people up, Driscoll fanboys, including Challies. have neatly labeled my outrage as a sin to be repented from rather than a call for change, thereby releasing the sinning preachers from having to pursue true repentance.
    How convenient.
    Yep. I’m not impressed. It’s business as usual by the spin doctors.

    There are many, many people who feel the same way.

  141. @ Joan:
    Joan wrote:

    Driscoll must think he’s a genius of Neuro-Linguistic Programming. The unsubtle repetition of the “father” thing renders any humble apology moot:

    Thank you for the laugh of the day.

  142. Mara wrote:

    Me not liking Challies had nothing to do with Calvinism and everything to do with him not even allowing women to read scripture out loud in the congregation.

    Ditto.

  143. Jeff Q wrote:

    My intention was to ask if the internet outrage culture is healthy or not.

    Well, if I understand Mr. Challies' position, it may be within limits, and it may not be if taken to excess. A better question, and one I think Mr. Challies alluded to, would be: is the internet outrage culture effective. We all notice that it got his attention, so that is a start.

    But may I say, that in the interests of plucking the beam(s) out of their own eyes, check out Al Mohler's blog and see if it is not outrage writ large, especially and repeatedly about sexual and gender issues and the associated politics of that.

    Personally, I think people ought to be able to have their say. It is silencing people that is not "healthy."

  144. @ Clay Crouch:
    I though he said he is in east texas. However, I did get the shakes reviewing the website. I shall have troops mass on the Raleigh borders ASAP

  145. Jeff Q wrote:

    Seems like the church leadership should be the one to handle it.

    Oh, I get it. Driscoll can go on every TV program in America, tell me to buy his books, write syndicated news columns in which he purports to speak for Christians and we have to wait for his Board of Advisors to respond (you know he is on his own board.) That is absolutely ridiculous. You go public, the public gets to go at you!

  146. Nancy wrote:

    Personally, I think people ought to be able to have their say. It is silencing people that is not “healthy.”

    I agree.

  147. @ TedS.:
    That sermon is ridiculous and an embarrassment to the Christian community. Yep-I am outraged….my new favorite word.

  148. Jeff Q wrote:

    The membership of that church doesn’t need websites repeatedly trashing their church and it’s leaders

    Jeff Q why are you even here? You have come to this blog and tried to express how wrong this is, using the exact same blog and tactic to do what you say others should not do. I have to assume that if you see someone outside your church that is not a member of your church, doing something wrong, you turn and look the other way.

  149. @ dee:

    Namby-pamby works. In less educated times, effeminacy! Spine-less.

    Confused. Lost. At sea in a row boat. Sold out. Bought and paid for by ________ (not Jesus!) Lost in his own backyard. Distrophic. Sophist. Lily-livered (old school). Willfully ignorant. Ignorant without cause. Ignorant. Emasculated.

    Any more?

  150. dee wrote:

    What is the opposite of outrage? Wussiness

    That would be a fun game. If you are not outraged, what are you?
    oblivious?
    hard hearted?
    playing CYA?
    cowardly?
    a co-conspirator?
    bought off?
    terminally ill–OK, you get a pass.

    So far wussiness has the lead, but I bet there are more ideas out there.

  151.   __

    @ Nancy

    “So far ‘wussiness’ has the lead, but I bet there are more ideas out there…”

    hmmm…

    Nadaballz ?

    ;~)

  152. Raymond wrote:

    Jeff Q wrote:
    The membership of that church doesn’t need websites repeatedly trashing their church and it’s leaders
    Jeff Q why are you even here? You have come to this blog and tried to express how wrong this is, using the exact same blog and tactic to do what you say others should not do. I have to assume that if you see someone outside your church that is not a member of your church, doing something wrong, you turn and look the other way.

    I’m here to give some pushback and another perspective to the outrage (yes, I’m still using that word) that exists here. To ask if turning on our own (depending on whether or not you consider Driscoll a Christian) is worth the effort. How does this look to the outside world? I’ll tell you how it looks… I have a co-worker that has no interest in being a Christian based off of the actions of others. Now, of course, his thinking is flawed, but eager watchdog sites and comment sections don’t paint a pretty picture. Bringing up questionable statements is one thing, but post after post after post about him seems to be going overboard.

  153. So, the CRUT pays Driscoll each year. How do we know that he doesn’t just turn around and donate that to the church?

  154.   ___

    “Urban TWW clipper?”

    “I just wanted to link to a Challies…about “Outrage Porn.”  ~ Jeff Q

    hmmm…

    Has Jeff Q  (wit da Challies post reference) just implied or insinuated that our TWW hosts are angry blogging porn queens producing sexually explicit material intended to cause sexual arousal? (1)

    datz new, huh?

    Sopy
    ___
    Notz:
    (1) Definition of ‘porn’ ography:  sexually explicit material intended to cause sexual arousal.; the explicit portrayal of sexual subject …

  155. dee wrote:

    @ Jeff Q:
    You have yet to comment on the victims involved in this situation. Unfortunately, you are confirming my suspicions.

    I’m not here to defend Driscoll or any other Christian that has wronged someone. What I’m here to attempt, is to ask if we should take so much joy in when they reap what they sow or shout from the rooftops and say “see, see, I told you so!!”

    And also to repeat part of my original comment, it makes an accusation (that he didn’t give 100% of the funds,) references the Ananias & Sapphria story from Acts, and then says “I’m not saying he did or didn’t…but…” How is that helpful? Can’t you see how it can be perceived to be looking for anything to continue to poke him?

  156. @ Jeff Q:

    Call it “outrage culture” or what you will, but it has done people like me a world of good to read these exchanges and realize that there are Christians who do not believe the church should be an industry.

  157. Sensible wrote:

    @ Jeff Q:
    Call it “outrage culture” or what you will, but it has done people like me a world of good to read these exchanges and realize that there are Christians who do not believe the church should be an industry.

    I agree it shouldn’t be an industry, but that’s just not realistic in our culture. When someone is a captivating speaker or touches on something that the masses likes, it just happens. I think it gets too big too fast for some people and eventually it overtakes them. Doesn’t mean we should burn them at the stake.

  158. Jeff Q wrote:

    You quote the Ananias and Sapphria story from Acts as your basis for judgment, but then add this:
    “Do not misunderstand me. I am not accusing Mark Driscoll of doing anything illegal with his money management. I don’t know if he is or isn’t. However, I am saying that there is much more to be discussed before giving him a pass of giving it “all” to the church.”
    Then what is the point of this article?

    Something can be technically legal but still be unethical, something even Driscoll himself acknowledged in a sermon you can listen to here-
    http://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2014/03/how-identify-true-repentance.html

  159. Jeff Q wrote:

    but using Scripture to condemn him routinely is despicable.

    On what other basis are Christians supposed to judge and condemn other self professing believers for behavior which is criticized in Scripture, if not the Scriptures?

  160. Jeff Q wrote:

    Doesn’t mean we should burn them at the stake.

    That’s hyperbole. Nobody here is burning anyone at the stake.
    Are you suggesting we all participate in a conspiracy of silence? That’s rather frightening considering what’s happened in churches that promote that.

  161. Daisy wrote:

    Jeff Q wrote:
    but using Scripture to condemn him routinely is despicable.
    On what other basis are Christians supposed to judge and condemn other self professing believers for behavior which is criticized in Scripture, if not the Scriptures?

    I’m not saying we can’t use Scripture to correct someone, I’m saying that making an accusation then picking a scripture to back up your point is wrong. Just like a non-believer would question the validity of the Bible by pointing to cleanliness laws in Leviticus that we don’t follow. NONE of us live up to the Ananias & Sapphira story concerning giving ALL to God. But I don’t think we’d use that story to attack someone, would we?

    Now, you might say that Driscoll himself said he’d give all the proceeds to the church, so we’re just calling him on a lie. First, I’d ask for a citation (the original First Things article doesn’t say this, it was a commenter) then find Driscoll’s reply and take it for what it’s worth instead of automatically assuming the worst.

  162. Jeff Q wrote:

    Seems like the church leadership should be the one to handle it.

    The Bible conveys any Christian is qualified and within rights to call out false teachings and teachers.

  163. In other news ~

    Resultsource.com has disappeared. Have they gone out of business following this fiasco?

  164. Jeff Q wrote:

    that’s just not realistic in our culture.

    Enlighten me here. Just which part of biblical christianity is “realistic” in our culture?

  165. @ Daisy:

    And furthermore:

    About being silent in the face of things one reasonably ought to be outraged about…Did not Sir Thomas More argue in court that silence gives consent.? Do we not still assume that? Probably all the words slung around about what to call the silent people are too lenient. The silent are consenters to the wrong. They are not avoiders. That is an excuse. Their silence gives consent. Regardless of what they may secretly feel in their hearts, their behavior gives consent. Period.

  166. Daisy wrote:

    Jeff Q wrote:
    Seems like the church leadership should be the one to handle it.
    The Bible conveys any Christian is qualified and within rights to call out false teachings and teachers.

    I’m not disputing that anyone CAN, I’m disputing on whether or not it’s effective.

  167. @ Jeff Q:
    Many people here are here because of experiencing abuse in a church environment me included. My now ex wife was advised by our then Pastor to divorce me because I uncovered some wrong doing on his part, which he felt could not be exposed(she works for the church). He is the same Pastor that 7 years earlier married us. Years later many that had left the church or was asked to leave, contacted me to apologize for not informing me of the character of that pastor before hand. It has been blog sites like this that has helped me cope and understand that these things are happening everywhere and we need to be a voice to warn others of what might be waiting for them. I would rather have your co-worked educated in what to look for, then to walk into an abusive situation.

  168. Jeff Q wrote:

    My intention was to ask if the internet outrage culture is healthy or not.

    I don’t understand why you define discernment, which is a perfectly biblical endeavor, with “outrage.”

    Or, the two don’t have to be mutually exclusive. A person can point out Driscoll’s shortcomings, using the Bible as a basis, as well as dislike the man himself and/or his behavior.

    The New Testament tells Christians to be on watch for wolves in sheeps’ clothing and to reject anyone who is a wolf.

    The Bible gives standards which a person must meet to be a leader. A good tree gives good fruit, 1 Corinthians 5:11, Titus 1:6, 1 Tim 3:2, and all that.

  169. @ Raymond:

    I feel for ya man, sounds like that was/is tough. I wish more of the posts and comments seemed therapeutic or healing in nature.

  170. Jeff Q wrote:

    I’m not disputing that anyone CAN, I’m disputing on whether or not it’s effective.

    So, choosing to do the right thing, or not, depends on how effective the outcome may be? So people can do evil that good may come of it? Or refrain from doing good because it might not work out as well as hoped? Now that philosophy just might be “realistic in our culture” but that is about all it is.

  171. dee wrote:

    You have yet to comment on the victims involved in this situation. Unfortunately, you are confirming my suspicions.

    Jeff Q can certainly correct me if I’m wrong, but I think guys like him view Driscoll as the victim.

    They tend to view threads or sites such as this as being comprised of a gang of heartless, cackling, meanies who are picking on poor little preacher man Driscoll (it could just as easily be Furtick or some other preacher).

    They don’t seen to stop and reflect maybe we have a good reason for being critical, and maybe Driscoll has victims, people who he has mistreated. All they seem to read are a bunch of people “ganging up” on one guy (in this case, Driscoll).

    I’ve seen the same behavior on Christian forums I used to post to, where someone would report something negative about a preacher.

  172. Nancy wrote:

    Jeff Q wrote:
    I’m not disputing that anyone CAN, I’m disputing on whether or not it’s effective.
    So, choosing to do the right thing, or not, depends on how effective the outcome may be? So people can do evil that good may come of it? Or refrain from doing good because it might not work out as well as hoped? Now that philosophy just might be “realistic in our culture” but that is about all it is.

    Yes, outcome based logic is not ideal. But I think you know what I’m saying.

  173. @ dee:

    That Carpenter guy used to post about Driscoll a lot, and I meana lot, at Warren Throckmorton’s blog. He is very passionate in his support of Driscoll which I find eerie.

    If I visited Carpenter’s home, I’m afraid I might find Driscoll posters all over his walls, a Driscoll bobble head dolls, Driscoll t-shirts, an autographed 8 x 10 photo, Driscoll shower curtain, etc.

  174. All ya’ll need to getz a life. Specially you Yeff Q.

    46 And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting (in the midst) of the doctors, both hearing (them), and asking (them) questions.

    47 And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.

    48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

    49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?

    50 And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them.

    #BOOM

  175. Jeff Q wrote:

    I have a co-worker that has no interest in being a Christian based off of the actions of others.

    I’m still not buying your definition of outrage, but that comment there?

    I was a Christian, (might still be one, not sure), but have been thinking about giving up on it all, and ironically, a blog like this one, that calls out Christians for their poor behavior, helps me to keep on reconsidering.

    I don’t see the sense in being a Christian if most who claim the name of Christ look the other way when other self-professing Christ-followers are sinning out the yin-yang.

    That there are Christians who speak up and say “What this Christian individual /church / Christian group is doing is not right” helps me to think,
    “Maybe I should not give up on Christianity. There are people who are actually pretty consistently living by Christ’s teachings, who care about people, so maybe it’s not all a big joke.”

    Also, ironically, (one of several reasons) I’ve been walking away from the faith are based on the antics of guys like preacher Mark Driscoll, his money grubbing, the greed, the sexism, the once-regular vulgarity from the pulpit, his rudeness towards people, etc.

    It helps me to see other people who say they believe in Jesus hold this guy (and ones like him) accountable, that would include the ladies who own this blog, the regular commentators, Christian host Janet Mefferd, and a few others.

  176. Daisy wrote:

    dee wrote:
    You have yet to comment on the victims involved in this situation. Unfortunately, you are confirming my suspicions.
    Jeff Q can certainly correct me if I’m wrong, but I think guys like him view Driscoll as the victim.
    They tend to view threads or sites such as this as being comprised of a gang of heartless, cackling, meanies who are picking on poor little preacher man Driscoll (it could just as easily be Furtick or some other preacher).
    They don’t seen to stop and reflect maybe we have a good reason for being critical, and maybe Driscoll has victims, people who he has mistreated. All they seem to read are a bunch of people “ganging up” on one guy (in this case, Driscoll).
    I’ve seen the same behavior on Christian forums I used to post to, where someone would report something negative about a preacher.

    I wouldn’t say he’s a victim of people’s abuse here, maybe more a victim of the “system.” Driscoll (or other national figures) are praised and held up as being special (whether or not that should happen is a different post altogether) and then a segment of the population resists that. As our culture stands today, you’re either for something or against it. You’re either a fanboy or a hater, whether you like it or not.

    So they get a huge following and maybe they’re equipped to handle it or maybe they aren’t. Maybe they’re at the top of an organization where things go wrong underneath them. Maybe they have a bigger evil streak that I give them credit for and they’ve only done this to gain power, money, and influence. Maybe they make mistakes and maybe they repent. All I’m saying is that it’s not as plain and simple as “scripture says we can call them out, so that’s what I’m doing.”

  177. @ Jeff Q:

    P.S. I always wonder about people who only post in response when a specific preacher is posted about.

    I think this is the first time you’ve posted to this blog?, and it’s to defend Driscoll in particular. This blog (and others) have also discussed preachers Steve Furtick, John Piper, and others. I don’t recall you jumping in to the Piper, Mahaney, or Furtick threads to defend those guys.

    If this blog is talking about Driscoll a lot more lately, it’s because Driscoll is providing the material, lots of it.

    Driscoll has been in one controversy of his own making, one right after the other, the last few months. I believe Janet Mefferd was the first to dig up the plagiarism about 2 / 3 months ago, World magazine mentioned the Result Source controversy about a week ago, etc.

  178. Mark wrote:

    So, the CRUT pays Driscoll each year. How do we know that he doesn’t just turn around and donate that to the church?

    I thought the point of the CRUT is that Driscoll does get to keep some of the funds while claiming he’s tithing it all (or a percentage) to the church. I would pay close attention to the part that starts out by Duncan:

    We don’t know who the Driscolls have designated as the non-charitable beneficiaries, though, given that he has said that he could retire and live off his book income, it is certainly one or more members of his family.

  179. Daisy wrote:

    @ Jeff Q:
    P.S. I always wonder about people who only post in response when a specific preacher is posted about.
    I think this is the first time you’ve posted to this blog?, and it’s to defend Driscoll in particular. This blog (and others) have also discussed preachers Steve Furtick, John Piper, and others. I don’t recall you jumping in to the Piper, Mahaney, or Furtick threads to defend those guys.
    If this blog is talking about Driscoll a lot more lately, it’s because Driscoll is providing the material, lots of it.
    Driscoll has been in one controversy of his own making, one right after the other, the last few months. I believe Janet Mefferd was the first to dig up the plagiarism about 2 / 3 months ago, World magazine mentioned the Result Source controversy about a week ago, etc.

    You’re right, I haven’t posted until today, but I do check the site out whenever I come across a controversial story about one of the usual suspects.

  180.   __

    “Relief Comes In Lit’l Blog Kindnesses’, Perhaps?”

    Hmmm…

    “It has been blog sites like this (ed. The Wartburg Watch) that has helped me cope and understand that these things are happening (ed. pastoral abusive behavior) everywhere and we need to be a voice to warn others of what might be waiting for them.  I would rather have you…educated in what to look for, then to walk into an abusive situation…”  ~ Raymond 

    *

    Raymond,

         hi.

    (great comment)

    Sorry bout da ‘church’ back-stabb’in stuff…hope youze bedda now.

    dat remindz me of a song…

    ♩ ♫  “Further on up the road someone’s gonna hurt you like you hurt me,
    Further on up the road, baby, just you wait and see,
    You gotta reap just what you sow; that old saying is true,
    Just like you mistreat someone, someone’s gonna mistreat you…”  ~ Joe Medwich Veasey and Don D. Robey

    (sadface, bedder pray fer da bad folks, huh?)

    His eyes are ever upon da sparrow!

    ATB

    Sopy
    ___
    comic relief: Eric Clapton & Joe Bonamassa – “Further On Up the Road”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYX-JvtTRwM
    Bonus: Bobby “Blue” Bland : “Further On Up The Road” 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRZCdJ4n60Q

    ;~)

  181. Jeff Q wrote:

    All I’m saying is that it’s not as plain and simple as “scripture says we can call them out, so that’s what I’m doing.”

    So you saying that if scripture says we can call them out we are not suppose to? Raymond leaves the computer scratching his head!!!!

  182. @ Jeff Q:

    I think it’s intentional. A lot of the mega church guys, the seeker friendly preachers, intentionally set out to model their church after a corporation.

    A lot of them are Disney fans – seriously, visit Duncan’s Pajamas Pages blog, where he did a post called the “Disneyification of the church.” The preachers of big churches read books about the creatives and leaders of Disney to try to copy Disney’s success in their churches.

    Read blogs and listen to pod casts that expose the roots of Rick Warren’s “Purpose Driven” churches.

    Their gurus – the gurus and role models of the Rick Warrens – are secular business guys. (Who’s Responsible for the Defects of the Knowledge Based Products of the Druckerite Companies?)

    These types of preachers believe in using deliberate strategies to get more rear ends in the church pews (which includes, but is not limited to, using entertainment – fancy sound systems, laser shows, rock bands on stage, shallow preaching, nothing but practical tips sermons, removing any crosses from the building, using movie clips during sermons), etc.

    These types of preachers, the celebrity ones, the mega church ones, are not stumbling into popularity, as you seem to feel they are.

    They are taking measured, intentional steps and using marketing teams to draw crowds, the way Coke and Burger King have focus groups and spend big money on ads to get more customers.

    Some of these churches get into branding, as though they are Starbucks. They hire marketing groups and get professional graphic designers to design a logo for their church, etc etc.

  183. @ Jeff Q:

    Ramon Coocoo wrote:

    Faith in Christ and faith in people are two different things. Atleast they use to be,

    Please do our readers and us a favor. Post under one name. You are also posting under Ramon. Surely you have more to do than maintain two personas…

  184. Jeff Q wrote:

    I’m not saying we can’t use Scripture to correct someone, I’m saying that making an accusation then picking a scripture to back up your point is wrong.

    So, a Christian makes an accusation (assertion), and they’re not supposed to point to the Bible? That’s just kind of odd.

    Maybe you did not care for the particular Bible passage that was used, or you feel it doesn’t apply to Driscoll here, but Christians are supposed to go by the Bible.

    Most Christians are sola scriptura, or at least recognize it as being authoritative on some level.

  185. dee wrote:

    @ Jeff Q:

    Ramon Coocoo wrote:

    Faith in Christ and faith in people are two different things. Atleast they use to be,

    Please do our readers and us a favor. Post under one name. You are also posting under Ramon. Surely you have more to do than maintain two personas…

    No, it’s two people. I’m a Mexican Baptist, he’s white!!! We’re wasting time together at work! #BOOM!

  186. Jeff Q wrote:

    I’m not disputing that anyone CAN, I’m disputing on whether or not it’s effective.

    Apparently is is at times. Christian bloggers have effected change before, in getting Christian preachers or organizations they are not personally a part of in pulling web pages down, or offering apologies, or making amends in other ways.

    Driscoll’s church is not holding him accountable, so his local body is not effective.

  187. @ Jeff Q:

    Driscoll sought out his fame and notoriety.

    See my post above about celebrity and/or seeker friendly mega church guys who use focus groups, secular business models, etc., to attract people. He did that with his church.

    Driscoll has been interviewed on national TV shows such as ‘The View,’ I think he went on Piers Morgan’s show, was interviewed by Glenn Beck, etc. The guy seeks out fame. He wanted it.

  188. Ramon Coocoo wrote:

    dee wrote:

    @ Jeff Q:

    Ramon Coocoo wrote:

    Faith in Christ and faith in people are two different things. Atleast they use to be,

    Please do our readers and us a favor. Post under one name. You are also posting under Ramon. Surely you have more to do than maintain two personas…

    No, it’s two people. I’m a Mexican Baptist, he’s white!!! We’re wasting time together at work! #BOOM!

    @JeffQ We got to much since to be on here anyway. This is mostly for though with all the answers but no actual ability to do anything. Sorry to get you blackballed Young Pup.

  189. Ramon Coocoo wrote:

    Ramon Coocoo wrote:

    dee wrote:

    @ Jeff Q:

    Ramon Coocoo wrote:

    Faith in Christ and faith in people are two different things. Atleast they use to be,

    Please do our readers and us a favor. Post under one name. You are also posting under Ramon. Surely you have more to do than maintain two personas…

    No, it’s two people. I’m a Mexican Baptist, he’s white!!! We’re wasting time together at work! #BOOM!

    @JeffQ We got to much since to be on here anyway. This is mostly for though with all the answers but no actual ability to do anything. Sorry to get you blackballed Young Pup.

    I meant sense and those. Oh… who am I kidding.

  190. @ Daisy:

    My claim is that the accusations (assertions) made are based off of personal differences/dislikes and Scripture is found to back it up. Like if I said you should not be telling me what to think and then referencing 1 Timothy 2:12.

    12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

  191. @ Daisy:

    Yeah, as I’ve repeatedly stated, I’m not a huge supporter, but I also don’t think he’s the biggest problem in American Christianity.

  192. @ Jeff Q:

    I don’t trust Driscoll and don’t even believe the guy is a Christian (as I was just saying on the I monk blog the other day).

    I do think Driscoll is misusing funds – he’s making a personal buck off money that he gained via his church.

    Driscoll says he’s giving all his money to the church, when he probably is keeping it all, or a big chunk of it, via the CRUT shell game.

    Otherwise, what do you make of his comment that he now has enough money he can retire from preaching and feed his family? In that case, the part from Acts about the Holy Spirit, Ananias and Sapphira, is very apropos.

  193. Raymond wrote:

    So you saying that if scripture says we can call them out we are not suppose to? Raymond leaves the computer scratching his head!!!!

    Personally, I think Jeff Q is just enjoying the attention.

    Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that “silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

    And Boz Tchividjian wrote a post entitled “A church silent in the face of evil is no church at all.” http://tinyurl.com/oe6vxop

  194. Jeff Q wrote:

    Yeah, as I’ve repeatedly stated, I’m not a huge supporter, but I also don’t think he’s the biggest problem in American Christianity.

    I don’t think anyone here has said that he is in particular, but he is an example, one of many, in a larger problem of contemporary Christianity.

  195. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    Raymond wrote:
    So you saying that if scripture says we can call them out we are not suppose to? Raymond leaves the computer scratching his head!!!!

    Personally, I think Jeff Q is just enjoying the attention.
    Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that “silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
    And Boz Tchividjian wrote a post entitled “A church silent in the face of evil is no church at all.” http://tinyurl.com/oe6vxop

    Not doing this for attention, just for the discussion. I think I’ve been pretty respectable in all of my posts. Not feeling very welcome for having a different opinion, though.

  196. Jeff Q wrote:

    @ Daisy:
    My claim is that the accusations (assertions) made are based off of personal differences/dislikes and Scripture is found to back it up.

    Which shows you haven’t really been paying attention to the misogyny, bodies under the bus, plagiarism, and inurement that this blog has written about.

  197. Jeff Q wrote:

    Not doing this for attention, just for the discussion. I think I’ve been pretty respectable in all of my posts. Not feeling very welcome for having a different opinion, though.

    Perhaps you missed this:
    http://thewartburgwatch.com/about-us-the-basics/about-us-blog-rules-of-the-road/

    “The Prime Directive: This is the most important term on our blog, hence the font size. Violators of this directive will be looked upon as ideologues, pumping up their particular idol- be it theological or human. This directive states the following: All commenters must acknowledge the pain some people have experienced at the hand of pastors and churches which overemphasize a particular doctrine or which apply harsh and capricious discipline. TWW exists, in part, to provide understanding in this area. We are dead serious about this (even though it is based on a concept from Star Trek). We repeat this doctrine under Definitions.”

  198. From Janet Mefferd, about Driscoll:
    True Repentance, The Ministry and What (Really) Just Happened

    …. In the wake of the letter, many Christians who have long been silent on the topic of Driscoll scandals, in general — notably, for example, the serial-plagiarism scandal that has dogged him since my November interview with Driscoll — have come rushing out to laud the embattled pastor’s mea culpa.

    ….did Driscoll truly and biblically repent?

    …Only the Lord knows the depths of the man’s heart and mind, but one only needs to read Driscoll’s letter in full to come away with more than a little skepticism about what he said. Here’s why….

    Please see her page for her thoughts on those subjects.

  199. P@ Jeff Q:

    Perhaps you feel unwelcome because you came here with the sole purpose of scolding the site owners and your fellow posters for their “outraged” tone, bit fail to recognize the irony of doing so with respect to a conversation about a man who routinely says outrageously offensive things aboit women, men who don’t fit his mold of masculinity, gay people, wives of unfaithful men, female religious leaders, Catholic priests, anyone who disagrees with him, or anyone who is insufficiently impressed by his shtick. Oh, and this unfortunate target of our “outrage” (which you hyperbolically compare to “burning at the stake”) also routinely uses violent imagery and expresses a desire to beat up people he disagrees with.

    This blog has advocated accountability and a loss of leadership positions; he wants a pile of metaphorical bodies under his metaphorical bus. Yeah, someone’s tone is a problem. Three guesses whose.

  200. @ Sopwith:
    It appears to me JEFF Q is just trying to reflect attention from Driscoll to himself and probably feels good about what he is doing for Driscoll.

  201. @ Jeff Q:

    I’m going back to your original post, several hours out of date now, but hey. Firstly, I have a natural affinity for anyone who is willing to be a lone voice. I appreciate the fact that you’re willing to stand up here and question, and I think you do draw attention to some good points. On two of which, I’d like to pick up.

    1 of 2

    The thing about Fiscal’s behaviour being handled within the church… to my mind, there are at least two distinct meanings of “church” here. There’s the separate denominational grouping (e.g. Mars Hill) and there’s The Church, the body of Christ. To some degree, what Park Fiscal gets up to within his own group is between him, the elders and the congregation. Though even there, the group should have – biblically – have proper links and accountability within the Church in Seattle *.

    But Fiscal does not just aspire to pastor Mars Hill. With or without questionable tactics, he markets his books far and wide. Without question, he aspires to be an authoritative voice on doctrine to The Church at large, and on the gospel to the world at large. However functional or otherwise his accountability at Mars Hill, there has to be some accountability beyond its walls commensurate with the role Fiscal has carved out for himself. The same is true of others, of course. But he needs to be accountable before The Church – and not only the “contented Church”.

    2 of 2

    Outrage porn… the origin of the term is secular, but I agree it is a risk to us in the Church. According to urbandictionary.com, it’s not only A Thing – it can be addictive! Don’t know how they know that, but it’s plausible. Though as several commenters here have said, there are true outrages happening in church groups around the world and they do affect surprisingly many people.

    3 of 2

    Mars Hill Seattle needing prayer… actually, Jeff, you’re right there, and I found that a challenging comment. I maintain that they also need proper relationships with elders who haven’t been appointed by/for Fiscal, but I admit finding it easier sometimes to write blog comments about the output of a congregation in Seattle than to pray for the church in Seattle. Point noted…

    * This link is the result of googling “seattle churches”; there are scores of congregations. Mars Hill has grown large by, as Fiscal himself puts it, “God’s grace”, and this rightly implies that the smaller congregations are not less worthy or significant within the city.

  202. Sopwith wrote:

     __
    @ Jeff Q
    opinion?
    hmmm…
    Pull up a chair, fella, and tell us all about it.

    Opinion on what, exactly? I’ll respond if you’re a little more clear.

  203. @ Jeff Q:

    I have a comment in moderation which I hope will redress the balance a smidge. If I have to be frank, your first post contained several accusations which weren’t likely to endear you. Which is odd because I agree that by and large, in the discussion since, you have been respectful in the difficult role of “Billy No-Mates” (which is a Thing in the UK).

    And I must apologise to all and sundry here because, having just posted a comment that may stir things a bit, I’m now slinking off to bed, it being 23 o’clock in Blighty!

  204. mot wrote:

    @ Sopwith:
    It appears to me JEFF Q is just trying to reflect attention from Driscoll to himself and probably feels good about what he is doing for Driscoll.

    As I posted somewhere up there ^^^, I’m from east Texas, don’t attend a Acts 29 church, have never met the man or bought any of his books. I’ve lurked around this blog for nearly a year, so I’m familiar with the way it works and it’s usual tone.

    I’ll repeat the reason I finally decided to post. This specific article makes an accusation based off of a comment on a First Things article and then uses a Scripture than NONE of us live up to to justify the accusation.

  205. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    @ Jeff Q:
    I have a comment in moderation which I hope will redress the balance a smidge. If I have to be frank, your first post contained several accusations which weren’t likely to endear you. Which is odd because I agree that by and large, in the discussion since, you have been respectful in the difficult role of “Billy No-Mates” (which is a Thing in the UK).
    And I must apologise to all and sundry here because, having just posted a comment that may stir things a bit, I’m now slinking off to bed, it being 23 o’clock in Blighty!

    I did come out pretty strong, I’ll admit that.

  206. @ dee:
    Thanks for the link. It’s worse than I thought. Those poor people at Mars Hill. We have to deal with Furtick, excuse me, Pastor Steven: NY Times Best Selling Author, right down the road from us.

  207. @ Jeff Q:
    Your co-worker would be glad to know there are Christians who aren’t robots, think for themselves, and also detest the gaming of the system the celebrity pastors do day in, day out. Pope Francis’ biggest criticism right now is: he isn’t being vocal enough against pedophile priests in his ranks.

    Trust me, the world wants to know Christians are sick of the crap too.

    The biggest reason people are agnostic/atheist isn’t because they sat around and contemplated the probability of each faith view, it is because they can’t stand the problems in the church being swept under the rug, the hypocrisy and false claims of ‘having the truth’, when so many of the church leaders lives are actually a lie.

  208. anon 1 wrote:

    @ Bridget:

    Hello! Did you want to say something? Are you the same Anon 1 who used to comment here? Miss your comments. Eagle mentioned on another thread recently that he missed your comments too.

  209.  __

    “Hey, Driscoll-Haters?”

    What?!?

    “His (ed. MD’s) repentance just pulled the rug out from underneath all the Driscoll-haters out there. He shifted the moral burden to them.” ~ Ray Ortlund 

    hmmm…

    “Is he (Ray Ortlund)  really implying that if you have a problem with things like lying, stealing, fraud, hypocrisy, cheating, cover-up and corruption, you literally hate Mark Driscoll? ” ~ Janet Mefferd

    (Krunch)

    sounds like it.

    all for one, and one for all?

    (Ya know how those birdies like ta stick ta gather…)

    I thought ‘church’ was about da stuff dat Jesus promised every buddy, no?

    “…in da doze dayz, many will come in Jesus’ name and do bad stuff, say bad stuff, and mislead many…” 

    (sadface)

    “We’ll all know that Mark Driscoll is repentant when he fully demonstrates it both in his words and, more importantly, his actions.  Then the healing can truly begin.” ~ Janet Mefferd

    Holding your breath?

    Stay tuned. ( but Pls. don’t turn blue… )

    -snicker-

    Sopy

    P.S. Lady Medford, “fear not”, you vindication doth commeth!  🙂
    ___
    reference: http://www.janetmefferd.com/true-repentance-ministry-really-just-happened/

  210. @ Jeff Q:
    Jeff Q….just a point. Annnias & Saphira’s issue was not that they didn’t give all to the apostles/church. The issued was that they tried to fool everyone into thinking they did. Big difference and I don’t think everyone is guilty of this…..

  211. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that “silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
    And Boz Tchividjian wrote a post entitled “A church silent in the face of evil is no church at all.” http://tinyurl.com/oe6vxop

    Those quotes should be cut and pasted onto all of the Driscoll “apology” posts out there – starting with Christianity Today, Facebook, and Ray Ortlund’s Gospel Coalition article. Oh, wait, Ortlund is not allowing comments. Whoops!

  212. ^ ^
             __
         .-‘     ‘-.
      /              \
      \ ^ ^ | ^ ^ /
       \     |      /
         \   |    /
          \  |  /
           \ | /
          
             )                     
           77

    @ mot ,

    Surely goodness and mercy shall follow us…

    all R blog dayz!

    … and we will dwell in the house of the Lord for ever…

    cheeeeeeeese!

    ATB

    Sopy (◠‿◠)
    ___
    inspiration: Air1 – United:  “Oceans”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSsYqRBC9K

  213. Jeff Q wrote:

    I agree it shouldn’t be an industry, but that’s just not realistic in our culture. When someone is a captivating speaker or touches on something that the masses likes, it just happens. I think it gets too big too fast for some people and eventually it overtakes them. Doesn’t mean we should burn them at the stake.

    Burning at the stake? I haven’t pulled any John Calvin’s, as far as I can tell.

    Now Christ was a far more captivating speaker than Driscoll (at least in my opinion), and he did not allow an industry to “overtake” him. Every pastor I have ever had was a more captivating speaker than Driscoll, and they have not allowed an industry to “overtake” them. Do you believe that Driscoll has no agency?

  214. As Jeff Q pointed out, I do think the “discernment blogs” such as this one thrive on “outrage porn.” All you have to do is read the comments day after day, which I generally do – because “outrage porn” is addictive. It’s the National Enquirer of blogdom, describing in details other’s ugly sins. “Outrage Porn,” the illicit temptation.

  215. @ Anon:
    This is how Ortlund, who exonerates all of his pastor buddies, sees it.

    “My desire is for everything on my blog to honor the Lord. I try to hold myself to that high standard, and I desire that the comment threads do the same. Most comments are of a high quality, for which I thank everyone. A few fall short, in my opinion.

    My caution was confirmed as I followed Twitter yesterday. I saw people tweeting criticisms of me that were, ironically, for things I actually agree with them about. But because my post didn’t say everything that could be said, they apparently assumed that I had nothing more to say — or care about. Oh well.

    So I go back to Scripture, which says that “love believes all things” (1 Corinthians 13:7). I understand that to mean, love always assumes the best, love fills in the blanks with positive assumptions. I try to keep that in mind.”

    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/rayortlund/2014/03/15/why-jesus-came/?comments#comments

  216. Jeff Q wrote:

    Yes, outcome based logic is not ideal. But I think you know what I’m saying.

    Hhmmm. I may be getting an inkling.

    Are you a fan of the BBC TV series SHERLOCK with Cumberbatch and Freeman?

  217. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    As Jeff Q pointed out, I do think the “discernment blogs” such as this one thrive on “outrage porn.”

    The Bible calls Christians to use discernment and wrong doing by self professing Christians. I guess if you want to refer to that as “outrage porn” that’s up to you, but it sounds strange.

  218. I meant to say
    “The Bible calls Christians to use discernment and to call out wrong doing” in my last post (which is still sitting in moderation). the “To call out” part was left out.

  219. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    As Jeff Q pointed out, I do think the “discernment blogs” such as this one thrive on “outrage porn.” All you have to do is read the comments day after day, which I generally do – because “outrage porn” is addictive. It’s the National Enquirer of blogdom, describing in details other’s ugly sins. “Outrage Porn,” the illicit temptation.

    Why do you read then – addicted?

  220. dee wrote:

    @ Anon:
    This is how Ortlund, who exonerates all of his pastor buddies, sees it.
    “My desire is for everything on my blog to honor the Lord. I try to hold myself to that high standard, and I desire that the comment threads do the same. Most comments are of a high quality, for which I thank everyone. A few fall short, in my opinion.
    My caution was confirmed as I followed Twitter yesterday. I saw people tweeting criticisms of me that were, ironically, for things I actually agree with them about. But because my post didn’t say everything that could be said, they apparently assumed that I had nothing more to say — or care about. Oh well.
    So I go back to Scripture, which says that “love believes all things” (1 Corinthians 13:7). I understand that to mean, love always assumes the best, love fills in the blanks with positive assumptions. I try to keep that in mind.”
    http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/rayortlund/2014/03/15/why-jesus-came/?comments#comments

    I will admit that this fellow irritates me given that he was once in my denomination, left one church divided, and led a church split out of the next into a new “denomination” (Acts 29). But when will so-called “Bible scholars” stop with the nonsensical interpretation of the “love always trusts” phrase in 1 Corinthians 13??? Love always trusts THE LORD! THAT is what that passage means, NOT “love always trusts people”!!! Where does the Bible teach that our love for people means that we must trust them? Jesus Himself did NOT trust people. John 2:24. Ray Ortlund should look that up.

    If he had a better understanding of 1 Corinthians 13 he would have recognized that loving C.J. Mahaney, and now loving Mark Driscoll, would mean LETTING THE FACTS SPEAK, not pre-judging the man as innocent because “love always trusts.” So ridiculous.

    But IF that is the proper understanding of “love always trusts” (it’s not), why isn’t he loving all those who feel themselves to have been abused and manipulated by Mahaney and Driscoll by “trusting” them, by taking them at their word?

    It is all politics, made worse by the nonsensical throwing around of Scripture. Which comes perilously close to taking the Lord’s name in vain if you ask me.

  221. @ pcapastor:

    Thank you! It’s distressing to see so many bible scholars seemingly use scripture poorly in order to prop up their own agendas 🙁

  222. A USA Today article published in October of 2008 reported that Franklin Graham, the son of Billy Graham, earned over $1 millon in 2008.

    Graham earned $633,722 as President of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and another $483,000 from his second job as President of Samaritan’s Purse. The former is supposed to be a missionary and evangelism organization, and the latter, a Christian relief organization to help the poor.

    Billy Graham has a salary this year of over $137,000 and cannot even work and that is never mentioned yet all YOU want to do is pull down these preachers that actually do some work.

    Franklin does not really preach, he is boring and is not a preacher, just an actor.
    Billy is too old to preach,that day is history for him, he just collects a paycheck.

    YOU are too bitter to write about it, you want to go after Furtick, Noble, and Driscoll who are all winning the world to Jesus.

    You stink at what you do.

  223. Mara wrote:

    Men like to do this to direct attention away from the very real cancer of porn use by men, and increasingly by women, in the church.
    Some men are honest about actual porn use being bad and not something Christian men should do. But even a lot of those honest men have a very hard time accepting how bad and how deep this cancer really is in the body of Christ.
    Some men try to direct people’s attention (their own and others) away from this truly dark, mostly masculine, and pervasive sin in the body of Christ. And they do so by focusing on the sins of women.
    Adam did it before God concerning Eve. It’s natural of the fallen masculine nature.
    So, to make people stand in utter abhorrence of all these ghastly feminine sins, they equate it to porn.
    I’ve heard the sin of gossip in women being call “porn for women”, trying to make gossip an exclusively female sin (even though men are usually equally guilty) and making it as bad as porn.
    It’s not as bad, but many of these men like to think so when women do it.
    So, YES. I have a terrible repulsion when ANY man tries to use the term “porn” in cutting the feet out from under the arguments of other people.
    It is an inflammatory word used to shut down conversations that need to happen to get the Church back on the straight and narrow.
    The church has been getting off track with Driscoll types leading the way.
    Their leadership must be questioned and we all need to reorient back to what Jesus really taught.
    Using the word “porn” as a conversation stopper is wrong and a terrible misuse of the word.

    I direct the above quote to you, Seneca.
    @ Seneca “j” Griggs.:

    Because of the glee you have in finding a new toy intended to shut down honest discussion and to keep people from talking about wolves in sheep’s clothing.

    The word “porn” is a dishonest and outrageous attempt to shut up those seeking justice and pressing for true repentance from wayward ‘leaders’.

  224. dee wrote:

    This is how Ortlund, who exonerates all of his pastor buddies, sees it.

    The guy is drunk (and not in the Spirit) – on Kool-Aid.

  225. Like many corporate leaders John Macarthur is well compensated financially. It’s in the public record that for the 2011 calendar year John Macarthur earned $402,444 for working PART-TIME for Grace To You and $103,000 for The Master’s College and Seminary. That’s more than $500,000, not counting his church salary, book royalties, speaking fees, etc. John Macarthur’s two sons hold the positions of treasurer and director at Grace To You. His Grace To You salary can be seen on page 7 of the link here. Remarkably, for working just part time for Grace To You, John Macarthur earns more than the annual salary of the President of the United States (which is $400,000).

    According to the IRS 990 forms submitted by Grace To You and The Master’s College and Seminary for 2011, John Macarthur worked 20 hours/week for Grace To You and 40 hours/week for The Masters College and Seminary. Does he actually work for these corporations 60 hours/week? Assuming he doesn’t work for either of these corporations on the weekends, then he must work on average 12 hours/day Monday through Friday. And I’ve been told by members of Grace Community Church that he claims he spends 40 hours/week studying the Bible, and he travels extensively (first class), plays golf, and writes books…

    Other Grace Community Church leaders are also well compensated. For 2011, the Executive Director of Grace To You, Phil Johnson, received $218,788 and Don Green, the Managing Director of Grace To You, earned $200,847 (these men earned more than the annual salary of a US senator). Rufus Harvey, the CFO at Grace To You, was compensated $170,615. Travis Allen, the Director of Internet for Grace To You, was compensated $139,135. It’s in the public record that seven employees at Grace To You were compensated in excess of $150,000 in 2011.

    GO AFTER THESE CROOKS not furtick, noble, and driscoll…they actually DO something!

  226. Steve Daniels wrote:

    GO AFTER THESE CROOKS not furtick, noble, and driscoll…they actually DO something!

    Thanks for that detailed report on what Johnny Mac and his associates earn (which is all disclosed and out in the open so the members of his church can decide whether or not they want to dip into their wallets to support them). Unfortunately, what Driscoll, and likely Furstick and igNoble are paid are guarded secrets, as yet undisclosed. And, pray tell, what exactly do they do that you are such a serial fan-boy?

  227. Anon wrote:

    Unfortunately, what Driscoll, and likely Furstick and igNoble are paid are guarded secrets, as yet undisclosed.

    Nailed it. The fact that Billy Graham makes 137k per year may or may not be concerning. But at least we know about it.

  228.   ___

    ‘Outrage P-o-r-n’ ?

    What?

    If you ‘google’ this, Pls. be careful what links you click on. It’s rough out there, folk.

    hmmm…

    (Urban) Special Definition: ‘outrage p-o-r-n’ : “Memes, news articles, TV segments, email forwards, or other forms of media that are designed to invoke outrage. This is especially true for political-related topics. Viewers of outrage porn often become addicted and spend many hours per day trying to seek new outrage highs.” – Urban dictionary
    ___
    Reference:
    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=outrage%20porn

    Notz:

    (1) Definition (this context)  of  ‘outrage’: profound indignation, anger, or hurt …

    (2) Regular definition of ‘p-o-r-n’ ography:  s-e-x-ually explicit material intended to cause s-e-x-ual arousal.; the explicit portrayal of s-e-x-ual subject …

  229. Steve Daniels wrote:

    GO AFTER THESE CROOKS not furtick, noble, and driscoll… they actually DO something!

    If the stuff you say about Graham and others guys is true, then I’d say they are deserving of criticism.

    Does B. Graham’s son Franklin act as a preacher of a church, where he oversees people personally, as do Driscoll, Noble, etc? Does he have a weekly show or blog where he gives sermons and teaches stuff from the Bible, like Driscoll / Furtick?

    I think this blog (in addition to discussing child abuse in churches) mainly addresses preachers who work in a church building and give a sermon once a week.

    Franklin Graham, based on what I know, is head of some Christian groups, such as Samaritan’s Purse, but he does not work as a preacher.

    That Graham or John MacArthur may be doing bad things doesn’t mean that bloggers should not write about Furtick, Noble, Driscoll, etc.

    I don’t think Furtick, Noble, and Driscoll do anything for anyone, except verbally abuse people, fire them, and take financial advantage of them.

    This blog has also discussed Ed Young Jr, John Macarthur, and others in the past.

    There are several posts on this blog about McArthur, such as this one:
    The Elephant’s Debt Roars. Are James MacDonald and HBC Deaf?

  230. This blog tends to focus on the things that others *aren’t* talking about, but should be. I really appreciate that.

  231. Steve Daniels

    If you use this blog’s pull down menu upper right, you can find posts they have already done on Franklin Graham and the other people you mentioned.

    Here’s the Franklin / Billy Graham posts:
    Franklin Graham posts

    One of the Franklin Graham posts on this blog (title: “ARE NON-PROFITS PROFITABLE? ASK FRANKLIN GRAHAM”) mentions his big salary.

    They also have posts on both John MacArthur and James MacDonald. Use the “Categories” pull down menu on the upper right hand side of the blog page to look up posts about those guys.

  232. Steve Daniels –

    With all your YOUing in comments I’d say a banned word could be applicable.

    I do agree that those are some pretty outrageous salaries. But at least the people donating to the the salaries are aware. Now when we all give an account for how we used our monies . . . .

  233. You know what? I’m going to own my outrage. Nearly 20 years ago, I got outraged that the “church” of $cientology came onto the Internet and tried to shut down discussion of its copyrighted, trademarked, expen$ive, $ooper $ekrit $akrid $kripcher$. I’d never been in a co$ (still haven’t) but I was highly offended. And then I fell down the rabbit hole and found how deep and how desperate it was. I’m glad to be part of a group of people who worked very hard both in public and behind the scenes to turn Scientology into the diminishing global pariah it’s becoming.

    I came home tonight to learn that 20 (!!!) pastors have asked for a repentance and reconciliation meeting with Mark Driscoll. I have to ask: how deep does the rabit hole go for Mark Driscoll and his Mars Hill franchises? As with Scientology, I suspect there are more than a few who would like to tell their stories of abuse but are afraid to–or have signed a non-disclosure agreement (how Scientological of Driscoll).

    Mark Driscoll is not my fight, but I’m here to support Dee and Deb. I believe sunshine is the best disinfectant and the truth is better than lies and obfuscation, even if done with the best of intentions, even in the name of Jesus.

    And, finally, I went and got my hair cut today. It’s pretty short. Every time I go for a cut and style, I remember how Mark shamed his wife Grace after she went and got her long hair cut short into a “mom” style. As I’ve said before, I shouldn’t know this, but Mark Driscoll thinks of his wife as a sermon illustration he can use, rather than a real person with real feelings. I wonder if he still tells her how long/short she can have her hair?

  234. Seneca “j” Griggs. wrote:

    I do think the “discernment blogs” such as this one thrive on “outrage porn.”

    You know, in a few weeks I have to lead a discussion in one of my grad classes, a narrative theory course, and for the longest time I had been agonizing over what text to bring in for a case study…until now…I’m going to find all of Driscoll’s apologies (plus the odd tract or two on “outrage porn” and “Driscoll Derangement Syndrome”), stuff them in a folder, give it some trite title: “Intertextuality and the Construction of Victimhood in the New Calvinism” or something of the like, and let my comrades have at it…oh, and cite everything…gotta give the man credit for helping me with my homework 😀

    Seriously though, the fact that personalities such as Driscoll receive the vast and credulous followings that they do is indicative of a massive critical reading deficit within the body of Christ.

  235. Sensible wrote:

    Seriously though, the fact that personalities such as Driscoll receive the vast and credulous followings that they do is indicative of a massive critical reading deficit within the body of Christ.

    I’ve come to believe there’s a behind the scenes motto.

    “Agree with us on these few points and you can be an idiot on everything else and we’ll still proclaim you as a great defender of the faith and a great theologian.”

    And what’s scary is that there are multiple competing groups with this motto.

  236. pcapastor wrote:

    But when will so-called “Bible scholars” stop with the nonsensical interpretation of the “love always trusts” phrase in 1 Corinthians 13??? Love always trusts THE LORD! THAT is what that passage means, NOT “love always trusts people”!!! Where does the Bible teach that our love for people means that we must trust them? Jesus Himself did NOT trust people. John 2:24. Ray Ortlund should look that up.

    Amen!! Thank you!!

  237. dee wrote:

    I saw people tweeting criticisms of me that were, ironically, for things I actually agree with them about. But because my post didn’t say everything that could be said, they apparently assumed that I had nothing more to say — or care about.

    {Off-topic}

    Quoting Ortland out of context, that paragraph does make a useful point, oddly enough.

    Whenever you or I make a statement or write an article about Something, somebody somewhere will pipe up complaining that you have “excluded” their pet issue. EG… Christianity Magazine had a really thoughtful and challenging feature on Jackie Pullinger a while back; she talked, inter alia, about the need sometimes to stop seeking “more of God” in our worship meetings and to seek more of him out in society where he wants to act through us.

    The letters page in the next issue contained a complaint from someone that she had emphasised action “to the exclusion of petition”. As though she could have pursued the lifelong ministry she has without a broad and deep prayer life.

    Thankyou for listening.

    {/Off-topic}

  238. pcapastor wrote:

    But when will so-called “Bible scholars” stop with the nonsensical interpretation of the “love always trusts” phrase in 1 Corinthians 13???

    Back on topic, there’s another point here.

    “Gospel” love in these cases often seems willing to trust the high-profile, successful person. If he’s famous, let’s not judge, how terrible to see people attacking other Christians, let’s remember we’re no better than him/her, let’s exalt Christ by assuming the best of this godly, famous person whom we know must be godly because they do it on a stage.

    Well, actually, that’s not unreasonable.

    Question, though.

    Who is showing the same love to the low-profile, low-income person struggling in a hard setting where it hasn’t all come up roses for them, with whom it is not sexy and cool to be associated, and onto whose coat-tails one could hardly be tempted to cling? In other words, who is willing to believe the best of the least of these brothers/sisters of Jesus, and therefore, of Jesus himself?

  239. Sensible wrote:

    give it some trite title: “Intertextuality and the Construction of Victimhood in the New Calvinism” or something of the like

    Fabulous! Would you be happy to accept any other title suggestions? I think I could cook something up postmodernist with the word “bitterness” in it.

  240. @ Jeff Q:

    Reporting facts, including relevant scripture, regarding a self-promoting public figure, and waffling a little on the implications of those facts is a necessity when the figure is a unaccountable head of an entity, where he controls the appointment to and salary of the so called accountability board, where he has a history of destroying the ministry of other ministers, where he has bragged about throwing people under the bus (aka, destroying them), where he has preached about his “porno-vision” of seeing women committing adultery in his sleep, where he has manipulated and spent church money to improperly get to the NYTimes best seller list, where he has plagiarized repeatedly others’ work, where he has taken credit for the work of a church paid staff who write his books, social media, and draft his sermons for him. How many violations of appropriate Christian behavior, let alone appropriate behavior for a pastor, does Driscoll have to commit before you recognize that Christians must denounce him because people are leaving the faith and not coming to truth faith because of him.

  241. @ Haitch:

    Looking forward to it…you can open up all sorts of doors with the “bitterness” angle…or down the road, a “post-Driscollian” lens of things (maybe I’m a bit too optimistic) 🙂

  242. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    pcapastor wrote:
    But when will so-called “Bible scholars” stop with the nonsensical interpretation of the “love always trusts” phrase in 1 Corinthians 13???
    Back on topic, there’s another point here.
    “Gospel” love in these cases often seems willing to trust the high-profile, successful person. If he’s famous, let’s not judge, how terrible to see people attacking other Christians, let’s remember we’re no better than him/her, let’s exalt Christ by assuming the best of this godly, famous person whom we know must be godly because they do it on a stage.
    Well, actually, that’s not unreasonable.
    Question, though.
    Who is showing the same love to the low-profile, low-income person struggling in a hard setting where it hasn’t all come up roses for them, with whom it is not sexy and cool to be associated, and onto whose coat-tails one could hardly be tempted to cling? In other words, who is willing to believe the best of the least of these brothers/sisters of Jesus, and therefore, of Jesus himself?

    Exactly! So well put.

  243.   __

    “Improprieties Establish The Mars Hill House(s) Of Worship As Becoming A Proverbial Den Of Thieves, Perhaps?”

    hmmm…

        Other U.S. religious 501(c) non-profit corporations should take notice, and not repeat Mars Hill’s mistake of the lack of holding its leader(s) accountable; as a lack of accountability may damage a religious 501(c) non-profit corporation’s reputation, but pastoral deception and manipulation such as what has been recently been identified and uncovered within the Mars Hill organization’s leadership  (i.e. the recent apparent manipulation of church members for book results gains and possibly the enlargement of private profits as well)  makes that damage prominent and therefore far more lasting.

        We have seen a response to the backlash of lack of accountability being one of padding the roster of those board members who’s role it is to ensure accountability within these religious 501(c) non-profit corporations.  

        We see appearance, but no actual accountability – but a board rubber stamp glossing over the pastoral/leadership improprieties. 

        We see houses of public worship becoming large business concerns, with little or no accountability to it’s current church membership roster occurring  – seemly  with the leadership within its hallowed walls becoming rubber stamp yes men; where these organizations, masquerading as ligitimate religious establishments where membership resources are abused and utilized for private purposes, and possibly even private gain as well.

  244.   __

    Thank-You,  An Attorney

    hmmm…

    Q. How many violations of appropriate Christian behavior, let alone appropriate behavior for a pastor, does Mars Hill Executive Pastor Mark Driscoll have to commit before it is recognized that Christians must denounce this type of behavior in their leaders, for the simple reason that kind folk  are leaving the faith (all together) and possibly not even coming to truth faith in Christ Jesus [at all ] because of him?

  245. __

    According to the scriptures, any one in the office of elder whose character and reputation are not above reproach, or whose authority is undermined by ‘a recurring pattern’ of sinful behavior in their life, ought to be removed from office.

  246. Sensible wrote:

    @ Haitch:
    Looking forward to it…you can open up all sorts of doors with the “bitterness” angle…or down the road, a “post-Driscollian” lens of things (maybe I’m a bit too optimistic)

    Goodly, give me a ‘coupla days, if no one else chimes in before then !

  247. Daisy wrote:

    Mark wrote:
    So, the CRUT pays Driscoll each year. How do we know that he doesn’t just turn around and donate that to the church?
    I thought the point of the CRUT is that Driscoll does get to keep some of the funds while claiming he’s tithing it all (or a percentage) to the church. I would pay close attention to the part that starts out by Duncan:
    We don’t know who the Driscolls have designated as the non-charitable beneficiaries, though, given that he has said that he could retire and live off his book income, it is certainly one or more members of his family.

    While you may be right that he actually gets a portion of the funds each year, you don’t know that he doesn’t just give it to the church. Just because someone CAN live off the income doesn’t mean they DO, or INTEND to.

    I think this CRUT thing is just a rabbit hole. The implication is that he is lying about the money and that he’s actually keeping 90% and only giving the church 10%. Since he claims he’s giving the church a whole lot more than 10%, I think this needs further scrutiny.

  248. mirele FKA Southwestern Discomfort wrote:

    Nearly 20 years ago, I got outraged that the “church” of $cientology came onto the Internet and tried to shut down discussion of its copyrighted, trademarked, expen$ive, $ooper $ekrit $akrid $kripcher$.

    You mean the OT3 Wall of Fire engrams (relating the origin of Body Thetans by Galactic Emperor Xenu 75 million years ago) that got broadcast on South Park with the subtitle “Scientologists Actually Believe This”?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl_pVif9x00

  249. Daisy wrote:

    @ BeenThereDoneThat:

    This next part is off topic and for Headless Unicorn Guy
    That Chick Tract About Dungeons & Dragons Is Getting Made Into a Movie

    Saw it on Slacktivist. Sent the link to my old D&D Dungeonmaster and weirded him out.

  250. An Attorney wrote:

    How many violations of appropriate Christian behavior, let alone appropriate behavior for a pastor, does Driscoll have to commit before you recognize that Christians must denounce him because people are leaving the faith and not coming to truth faith because of him.

    When JeffQ gets thrown under the bus himself, and not until then.

  251. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    Who is showing the same love to the low-profile, low-income person struggling in a hard setting where it hasn’t all come up roses for them, with whom it is not sexy and cool to be associated, and onto whose coat-tails one could hardly be tempted to cling? In other words, who is willing to believe the best of the least of these brothers/sisters of Jesus, and therefore, of Jesus himself?

    This, in a nutshell, was the question I posed to an elder at my former church regarding a domestic violence victim whom the elders threatened to discipline for fleeing her husband. The elder’s answer? Shut up and submit to the elders or you’ll get the boot, too. I booted myself to save them the trouble.

  252. Jenny wrote:

    regarding a domestic violence victim whom the elders threatened to discipline for fleeing her husband. The elder’s answer? Shut up and submit to the elders or you’ll get the boot, too. I booted myself to save them the trouble.

    Another prime example of how important hierarchy and structure than mercy and justice are to these goons in power. sheesh.

  253. Mara wrote:

    Jenny wrote:
    regarding a domestic violence victim whom the elders threatened to discipline for fleeing her husband. The elder’s answer? Shut up and submit to the elders or you’ll get the boot, too. I booted myself to save them the trouble.
    Another prime example of how important hierarchy and structure than mercy and justice are to these goons in power. sheesh.

    C.S. Lewis described Hell in The Screwtape Letters as a hierarchical and very structured bureaucracy bereft of mercy and justice.

  254. LawProf wrote:

    C.S. Lewis described Hell in The Screwtape Letters as a hierarchical and very structured bureaucracy bereft of mercy and justice.

    So… Scotland is hell? Didn’t see that one coming.

  255. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    LawProf wrote:

    C.S. Lewis described Hell in The Screwtape Letters as a hierarchical and very structured bureaucracy bereft of mercy and justice.

    So… Scotland is hell? Didn’t see that one coming.

    Depends on who you ask. If your definition of hell is being unable to find a loose penny in thye g

  256. LawProf wrote:

    Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    LawProf wrote:

    C.S. Lewis described Hell in The Screwtape Letters as a hierarchical and very structured bureaucracy bereft of mercy and justice.

    So… Scotland is hell? Didn’t see that one coming.

    Depends on who you ask. If your definition of hell is being unable to find a loose penny in thye g

    Mistyped, meant to say: Depends on who you ask. If your definition of hell is being unable to find a loose penny in the gutter, then undeniably.

  257. LawProf wrote:

    If your definition of hell is being unable to find a loose penny in the gutter, then undeniably.

    Hmm… I can think of worse things; the gutters are clean, at any rate.

    As someone who works among the unemployed, I was thinking more about the mechanics of the public sector here (though there are honourable exceptions).

  258. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    LawProf wrote:

    If your definition of hell is being unable to find a loose penny in the gutter, then undeniably.

    Hmm… I can think of worse things; the gutters are clean, at any rate.

    As someone who works among the unemployed, I was thinking more about the mechanics of the public sector here (though there are honourable exceptions).

    I was just funnin about Scottish thrift. The mechanics of the public sector is nigh on hellish wherever you go, I think.