Former MHC Leader on the "Call to Reconciliation"

I was in leadership at MHC but am no longer a member as a result of some other-worldly interactions and meetings with elders & pastors.  

I have many more thoughts, but here are a few. My response to the latest “Call for Reconciliation” was similar to yours in that it felt misleading.  It seems the church’s responses are consistently evasive or misleading, or both.  In one of the first responses, they made it seem that the pastors involved in Andrew’s Church Discipline situation were fired as a result.  This was untrue (which I confirmed by way of the exact timing with Andrew) and I’m glad that the church has clarified this.  Similarly, it feels deceitful when they give numbers about a small percentage of cases that are actually in Church Discipline.  As you mention in your post, there are many of these conversations that occur on an ongoing basis.  Many people who are wiser or more mature choose to remove themselves before they officially get to the status of church discipline.

When I read the statements about MHC’s Theology of Church Discipline I am struck with four thoughts:

1.      Theology and Praxis are two entirely different things.  While their doctrine may be mostly on track, the application of their doctrine is questionable, if not blatantly abusive in some cases.

2.      The level of detail given to determining “true repentance” in their literature is disturbing.  I’ve researched other mainstream church discipline policies and nowhere else do I find this level of a pastoral discretion in determining true repentance on areas that are grey in Scripture.  Clearly, there are ways to determine true repentance in sin areas that are black and white in Scripture.

3.      If we were to apply MHC’s standard of true conviction, confession and repentance to MHC itself, would the church would be under Church Discipline?  And who would administer this discipline?

4.      Any thoughts on why many of these statements that come from the church never come from a particular person?  It seems like one of them initially was authored by a lower level staff but they currently are all authored by “Mars Hill”.  I don’t mean to be cynical, but it seems convenient that the church leadership can call out individuals when they disagree but hide behind the organization of the church when it comes to responsibility and giving a response.  Does the idea of conviction, confession, repentance, restitution & reconciliation get extinguished because we are dealing with the church as an organization and not each instance with each leader/elder/pastor?

My experience from conversations with multiple MHC pastors is that their theology on submitting to your church leaders is the following.  If a leader in this church tells you to do something that is not specifically prohibited by scripture, then you have a responsibility to do it.  In most churches, if a leader tells you (or asks you) to do something, you have a responsibility to obey if it is a black and white issue in Scripture.  At Mars Hill Church, you are considered in rebellion to authority if you don’t obey a church leader’s request, even if that request is a matter of conscience and something you may have resolved alternatively through prayer and counsel.

Why I Won't Be Answering the "Call to Reconciliation"

At least not on those terms...

On Friday, Mars Hill posted A Call For Reconciliation.  Here is my response:

I am glad that Mars Hill has acknowledged that there are many people out here who have been hurt by their church.   I appreciate their call to reconciliation, however, I won't be answering it on those terms.

Please know that I pray regularly for Mars Hill and its leadership.  It is my greatest desire to see good come out of all of this.  I love many people who are still at Mars Hill, and I am glad that most of them are happy there.  The positive experience of some does not invalidate the very negative experience of others though. For every story I have posted here, there are stories I did not share, because the person shared their story in confidence.

The statement seemed to blur the lines and imply that all of the people speaking out against Mars Hill were under church discipline and are taking those matters public.  To clarify, this is the exception and not the rule, as in our case and most others that have been shared here, we were not, in fact, under church discipline.  And since, in this post as well as the last two responses PR issued, they continue to stand by their stance on church discipline, one which I do not now or will I ever agree with, I am unable to be reconciled in the way that they wish to reconcile me.

Please know, that while I do not wish to be reconciled to Mars Hill in the way they understand it, that I am allowing God to give me a heart of forgiveness.  It is a process but I am daily growing it.  And I know that God is more than capable of healing my heart and helping me to forgive.

What the Mars Hill pastors fail to realize is that those of us that have told our stories about our negative experiences at Mars Hill would attribute the abuses we experienced to our Community Group Leaders, Elders & Pastors.  We trusted them to treat us with love and grace then, and that is not what happened.  Why should we trust them to now?  Forgiveness is not trusting someone who has hurt you.  And forgiveness is not neglecting justice for the oppressed.

I am not comfortable submitting my personal information on their form.  And I am not comfortable sitting down and meeting with Mars Hill elders on their terms.  I did not choose to subject myself to meetings with the CG leader when I left for the same reason I do not want to do it now.  It is not clear in their statement whether they are trying to get me to repent and be reconciled to Mars Hill, or if they wish to repent and be reconciled to me.

The only conditions under which I would ever consider the call to reconciliation are as follows:
1) The meeting was held in a neutral place, with an elder I am comfortable meeting with.
2) I am free to bring someone along, be that a trusted advisor, pastor at my new church, counselor, etc.
3) The meeting will not become a theological debate over "open-handed" or secondary issues that we may disagree on.
4) I am free to write about my experience afterwards.

My email is, and has always been, accessible through this blog.  While I maintain anonymity here, I am confident that my former pastors and CG leader know who I am from the details of my story.  I have never been contacted for apologies, reconciliation or the like.   However, I do not need an apology or reconciliation (as Mars Hill would define it) to forgive.

If any of my readers choose to pursue reconciliation through the website, please know that I will support you and pray for you and assist you in any way that I can.  We all need to handle our situation as the Holy Spirit leads us.

Redirected to Jesus...Step in the Right Direction?

I have to confess, it is very easy to get on a witch hunt with Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill.  I am guilty of losing focus on helping others like me and focusing too much on Mark's every move and then criticizing it.  My original intention in starting this blog was to create a safe haven for people who have been hurt by Mars Hill.  It was to collect all the stories in one place, so that someone who is questioning what they are experiencing can easily locate them.  It is my hope to help people, not harm people, and that includes Mark Driscoll and my former campus pastors and elders. 

It is important to tell our stories, and I hope that by telling how the authoritarian structure and gender gospel at Mars Hill has hurt me, and is hurting others, both those with stories and those involved in the stories will be helped.  I would LOVE for Mars Hill to repent, change the way the church is "governed", and seek to apologize to those who have been hurt.  I have many people (though they no longer speak to me) who are still there and who I care about very much.

Yesterday, I was posting a comment on a blog and attempted to re-link to the doctrinal statement that I referenced in my story.  To my surprise, the page redirected here:

http://marshill.com/about/a-word-on-our-doctrinal-statement

and here:

http://marshill.com/pages/jesus

Does this mean that the concerns are being heard?  One of the main concerns I had was the following statement from the doctrinal statement:

"We also believe that particular spiritual gift(s) are neither essential, nor prove the presence of the Holy Spirit, nor are an indication of deep spiritual experience (1 Corinthians 12:7, 11, 13; Ephesians 4:7–8). We believe that God does hear and answer the prayer of faith, in accordance with His own will, for the sick and afflicted (John 15:7; 1 John 5:14, 15). We believe that it is the privilege and responsibility of every believer to minister according to the gift(s) and grace of God that is given to him"

This concerned me because it basically says, “just because you think you are being led by the Holy Spirit doesn’t mean you actually are”. It is my greatest hope that they are reevaluating the doctrinal statement.  Being redirected to JESUS is awesome.