It is obvious that jason, the elders, mission treasure and personnel committee members have never intended support any other minister other mark.

We have all sin and come short of doing what is right at times. Who can cast the first stone?

Richard Basham:
Ed. note: The courts? The law? It is against the law to molest a child. How’s about that for the first stone? Do you guys read your Bible?

We have all sin and come short of doing what is right at times.Who can cast the first stone?

This is the most common thing that good church people say when they condemn those who point out that their pastor is NOT Biblically qualified, who is accused of systematic abuse, who appears serious deficits in character that disqualify him from the ministry.

I am a successful corporate whistleblower. In my case, there were only two people who were not involved in the corrupt activities of my former employer, but who became privy to damming information. The other lady was married with children. If it wasn’t for the strong support network I had in New England, I wouldn’t have been able to whistleblow (and advise the other lady on the risks of whistleblowing–that she wasn’t in as good of a position to do it and stay safe as me). I am grateful to the people who stood beside me, who supported me. Many of my supporters are people I met afterwards (because it was not safe). I strongly agree with the sentiments expressed by JJallday.

I would hope that someone makes arrangements to honor the three pastors who just left with a farewell luncheon. I made farewell gifts that we gave to the Thorns. I would be happy to supply a farewell scarf to each of the pastors who left. (There are now many Park Streeters who will now know my identity, based on this offer.) If info on this could be posted and a sign-up be created, I would certainly go.

Richard Basham:
We have all sin and come short of doing what is right at times.Who can cast the first stone?

This shtick is getting as old as using David to excuse sexual abuse.

Richard Basham,

“It isn’t my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your responsibility to judge those inside the church who are sinning. God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, ‘You must remove the evil person from among you.’” I Cor. 5:12-13 NLT

As they say, read the whole thing. Sometimes it seems like some of the posters here have only been exposed to a couple out of context verses about stoning and judging. Conveniently for nefarious leaders. Please, fellow Christians, read your whole Bibles. I Cor. 5 would be a good place to start.

Elizabeth Klein,

Well said.

Susan Lane:
Richard Basham,

Revised typo:
(e.g. Mark and his elder board should never think that they operate in a vacuum, and even the walls have ears.)

Richard Basham,

Ironically Mark preached on Lev 21-22 a few years ago why priests and pastors should be held to a higher level of accountability. Obviously that isn’t being applied to Mark here – or rather, they would say it is and Mark hasn’t done anything that bad. I can say based on public accounts and what I’ve heard, Mark himself actually doesn’t believe he has done anything wrong and has not made a real effort to reconcile with those who have felt sinned against. Unrepentant sin and narcissism in a church leader is a big problem.

The leadership of PSC claims to have listened, learned, and changed their authoritarian, anti-Congregational ways. Here’s the evidence. Mark and Jason paid a surprise and unsolicited visit to a recent missions committee meeting. Some would call it a courtesy. However, given the current mood of the church, others may call it an intrusion. The committee made the mistake of openly and honestly discussing the possibility of holding their own version of an executive session i.e. no pastors or elders. Given recent events, that seems like a reasonable strategy. What was the response from the new policy of listening and consensus building? The entire committee was told that if they met without these leaders present, the elders would seriously consider completely disbanding this group of faithful servants. They were also informed that Mark is now the “Pastor to Park Street Missionaries.” Who spread that vicious rumor that Mark wanted to take over the missions committee?

BTA:
The leadership of PSC claims to have listened, learned, and changed their authoritarian, anti-Congregational ways.Here’s the evidence. Mark and Jason paid a surprise and unsolicited visit to a recent missions committee meeting.Some would call it a courtesy. However, given the current mood of the church, others may call it an intrusion.The committee made the mistake of openly and honestly discussing the possibility of holding their own version of an executive session i.e. no pastors or elders. Given recent events, that seems like a reasonable strategy. What was the response from the new policy of listening and consensus building?The entire committee was told that if they met without these leaders present, the elders would seriously consider completely disbanding this group of faithful servants. They were also informed that Mark is now the “Pastor to Park Street Missionaries.”Who spread that vicious rumor that Mark wanted to take over the missions committee?

This totally tracks with what I’ve heard —

Mark has successfully put every leadership committee under his control: the Personnel Committee, the Nominating Committee, the Board of Elders, the Membership Committee, and the sub-committee of Deacons.

But the one part of the church that Mark doesn’t yet control is the Missions Committee. He is “rabid” to get control of it & the multi-million dollar budget.

In that light, it’s interesting to look back at Julian Linnell’s reasons for resigning, from his May 31 letter:

“Despite how much I value my ministry at Park Street, it has become clear that I can no longer continue under our present leadership. Despite bringing my concerns to VOCA, the Vicinage Council, and our present leadership, I have not seen movement towards a healthier community. When I have communicated alternative viewpoints, particularly over issues of right and wrong, these have been consistently met with defensiveness and rationalization rather than a genuine effort to listen, or they have been ignored and dismissed altogether. I have witnessed a violation of the law of love in the treatment of God’s flock, the sheep of his pasture, who have earnestly desired honest conversation and places to be heard and understood. Furthermore, there has been an inability to do the hard work of resolving interpersonal conflicts, a pattern of saying one thing publicly yet doing something differently afterwards, and a violation of several bylaws by the Board of Elders without accountability. Given this environment, I cannot be an effective minister who cares for the congregation, equips the saints for ministry, and expands the Gospel.”

I wonder what Julian’s “alternative viewpoints” over “right and wrong” would have been?

To me, it sure looks like Mark & pro-Mark leadership are happy to play fast & loose with right and wrong. As long as they get control. It’s the only “right” that they know.

Elizabeth Klein,

I just perused the membership handbook and it seems that since 1997 PSC has 30 or so missionaries who are solely supported by them. So I guess technically MB could be their pastor. Without a missions pastor does this make MB also their supervisor? Are they considered staff and subject to the same loyalty oaths and dismissal threat that other staff have endured and been victims of? Or does PSC donate to their agencies in their name as their sole means of support? I’ve done a cursory search for the names of these missionaries but have come up empty. The membership handbook also mentioned other types of missionaries who may receive only partial support. Perhaps some Park Streeter more in tune with how this works could enlighten us.

Former Boston Girl:
Elizabeth Klein,

I just perused the membership handbook and it seems that since 1997 PSC has 30 or so missionaries who are solely supported by them. So I guess technically MB could be their pastor. Without a missions pastor does this make MB also their supervisor? Are they considered staff and subject to the same loyalty oaths and dismissal threat that other staff have endured and been victims of? Or does PSC donate to their agencies in their name as their sole means of support? I’ve done a cursory search for the names of these missionaries but have come up empty. The membership handbook also mentioned other types of missionaries who may receive only partial support. Perhaps some Park Streeter more in tune with how this works could enlighten us.

the 2023 Annual report may have more info on this. I think in the past, the funds were distributed via the specific sending agencies. In addition to the current missionaries that PSC supports, I think there are several retired missionaries that receive a small monthly donation from PSC as well – which I truly appreciate (James 1:27 … to look after orphans and widows…)
Not sure if that provision will continue if the budgets are being sliced

A little birdie told me that MB, Jason, Goeff, & another elder have “requested” to meet the chair of the Missions Committee urgently. I believe the meeting is tonight. The chair has fought hard for the truth & the missions program and could be hanging on by a thread. Has the takeover of the MC begun? I hope not. One long standing member of the MC was also removed by the BoE in the past few days. Are more to come?

Observant Outsider:
The budget will be a big issue with the trajectory they are taking. Some bigger donors have already indicated they will no longer be giving to the church. Last year’s budget shortfall was $500,000. I would expect this year to be $1mil or more less than the budget unless they can get some big donations. Difficult decisions are going to have to be made and staff positions and missionary contributions will have to be eliminated. There’s not much that can be done about that.

Given all this, why oh why are the elders, with the help of VOCA & the VC, insisting, “BUT WE NEED HIM!!!!!”

I don’t get it. Not only the “bodies behind the bus” human toll that Mark’s ministry has caused, but the $.

Churches often ignore bodies behind the bus. They totally shouldn’t!! But they do. As long as their reputation looks clean and the $ is good, then that (to them) justifies the bodies behind the bus.

But at PSC, you’ve got a bodies behind the bus problem, AND a $ problem.

So what makes Mark THAT special? So special, that the elders must cling onto him almost like he’s God in the flesh, come to save PSC, while every other human is expendable?

I just don’t get it. And I say this, having observed a whole lot of Christians happy to defend abusers if those abusers are personal friends, and/or seem successful in their ministries, doing “great work” for the Kingdom (always defined as butts in the pews and $$$$, never simple, quiet growth in Christlikeness).

But Mark has so obviously unleashed chaos at PSC, so he can’t even claim $$$$ “Kingdom” success!

Right???

Elizabeth Klein,

“For there is hope for a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that its shoots will not cease.” Job 14:7

You have to understand that there is a cult-like affinity for Mark among a group of PSC leaders. Mark has been chosen by God to lead the church and everything that’s been happening is the work of Satan trying to destroy him. I don’t think they expected the church to vote that way and for the “sustained resistance” to go on this far. They’re making a calculation that they convince enough people to stay they can survive. They WANT people to leave the church at this point. I think they don’t realize how much it will cost them.

I am really sad for what is happening at our church. There has been so much doubling, tripling, quadrupling down. The BOE knows that Mark has not been following VOCA recommendations and still choose him over VOCA, the 4Cs, and the congregation.