The Falcon   |   Volume 83, Issue 51

Published 5/15/13   |   Log In

Fear, abuse at Mars Hill

Church’s leadership is heavy-handed and entitled

By TAYLOR SVENDSEN

Published: February 8, 2012


My first experience with the institution of Mars Hill Church was through an old friend of mine: a stout, 6’2”, Irish, ex-gang, sea captain with a taste for beer, semi-automatic firearms and old American wisdom. He must have imagined the Mars Hill compound to be the ideal place to reconnect after two years.

I heard my share of stories and warnings about the neo-reformists, tales of resentment and angst about everything from theological nuances to accusations of brainwashing.The only thing going through my mind as I walked through the doors of the Ballard-based stronghold was the phrase “into the belly of the beast.”

After hearing all the hype, the place seemed modest compared to most, though at first glance, I got strange vibes from certain details. The whole place was crawling with men in security uniforms. In particular, two perched next to Mark Driscoll during his monologue. Rumor has it he is rarely seen on church grounds without them.

I guess the whole thing started on Oct. 8, 2006, when a man charged the pulpit during a sermon, wielding a machete and a heart full of rage. In the same year, several threats were directed to Mars Hill and thus the Security Service was formed, or as I like to call them, the SS.

This was not the only interesting change to the institution. In 2007, the church began an entire overhaul of the institution’s membership rules and governing bylaws. Essentially, this reorganization resulted in the consolidation of executive power to four pastors: Driscoll, Jamie Munson, Scott Thomas and Tim Beltz. Concerned elders Paul Petry and Bent Meyer spoke out against this change and were met with probation and, ultimately, expulsion from leadership. They were called by leadership to repent, and when they refused, were excommunicated from the compound.

This has been a common theme in situations regarding dissent and discipline. The Stranger recently published an article titled “Church or Cult?”, a lengthy investigation into several case studies involving similar instances.

The article focuses mainly on the stories of two men, Andrew Himes and Lance (the latter a pseudonym), and their departures from the institution. The controversy in the piece derives mainly from the approach in how the leadership treated the two men and the unethical implications that arise. It is threaded heavily with shame and submission.

They are not alone. The well-trafficked blog of Mathew Paul Turner has spearheaded many accusations against the institution’s internal workings.

Turner was originally the source for the story behind the events of ex-member Andrew. Others agreed with Andrew’s reasons for coming forward.

One of those people was an anonymous woman who started her own blog called Mars Hill Refuge, a place devoted to telling stories of abuse from the community and leadership alike.

Amidst the recent stir of events and publications putting Mars Hill in question, the institution’s dictators have taken no hints. In fact, their only response was a statement from Pastor Justin Holcomb on the organization’s website followed by a chapter concerning discipline from Driscoll’s book Vintage Jesus.

“All is well,” seems to be the message that most gather from this response. The leadership group might as well be saying, “Everything is normal here at Mars Hill. We love Jesus and only act by Scripture and the grace of God.”

The most dangerous religious sects typically emphasize a sense of normality, responsibility and focus on God — all while maintaining an iron hand behind closed doors. It’s a typical smoke-and-mirrors tactic that has led generations of religious leaders into an inevitable and wanton fortification, only to bastardize the twisted beast of entitlement.

“People just do the strangest things when they believe they’re entitled. But they do even stranger things when they just plain believe,” Kevin Smith wrote in the movie Red State.

I’m sure the man who saw it fit to charge the pulpit and slice up Driscoll had more belief than we ever will. God bless that brave and, most likely, half-crazed punk. It occurred to me that day, standing in Mars Hill, that I admired that man — someone whom no one would ever celebrate.

We will probably never know or understand what drove him to do what he did, though I’d like to think that maybe he saw the fatal fallacies of the entire institution he was in and wanted to be the one honest voice among an audience of religious folk who regarded the place with little more than fear and loathing.

Staff reporter Taylor Svendsen is a sophomore psychology major at Seattle Pacific.


Comments

ChUck said:
Mr. Svendsen rambles so much it's hard to pin down what he's trying to say here. But I'd like to take issue with a couple of the points he seems to think he is making, if I may.

First. "The most dangerous religious sects typically emphasize a sense of normality, responsibility and focus on God." Which sects does Mr. Svendsen have in mind? Does this sound like an accurate description of the Branch Davidians, Aum Shinrikyo or Heaven's Gate to you? It doesn't to me. Mr. Svendsen may need to further explain what he means by "dangerous religious sects" here. He goes on to say accuse "generations of religious leaders" of trying to "bastardize the twisted beast of entitlement." That final phrase certainly rolls off the tongue, but I haven't a clue what it means, and I'll lay dimes to doughnuts that Mr. Svendsen doesn't either.

Mr. Svendsen also dares us to invoke Godwin's Law, and spends his last few paragraphs apparently trying to get up the gumption to praise someone who attempted homicide. It's certainly an entertaining essay, but not a very cogent one. And what became of the Irish sea captain, anyhow?

Now, then: Almost a quarter of a century ago, a group affiliated with Kip McKean's "International Church of Christ" attempted to gain a foothold at SPU via an on-campus Bible study that tried to recruit students into the group. After learning as much as they could about the ICOC's beliefs and practices, the School of Theology and the administration voted to ban them from campus.

My question: Has the SPU faculty and/or administration taken any such position regarding Mars Hill? According to the "church discipline" policies and procedures that came to light in the Andrew Himes case, Mars Hill leaders can drag out the church discipline process as long as they want, simply by declaring a church member's repentance to be "false" and subjecting him or her to further "meetings." Not to mention requiring the member to submit his or her sexual history in writing, revealing a member's offenses to the congregation at large, and attempting to continue the discipline process after the member leaves the church.

These are all abusive practices, and SPU should take an official stand against them, just as it did against the ICOC.
sikandro said:
"Has the SPU faculty and/or administration taken any such position regarding Mars Hill?"

Mark Driscoll was banned from SPU's campus a number of years ago. That's the only official censuring that I know of.
Anne said:
Those who take a firm stand in something they believe in, will always cause uproar. Because those who believe in terms of black and white will always offend someone. I think this can be said in terms of Mars Hill, if this church is so awful why is it growing? Maybe because people are sick of watered down ideals that try to please everyone in attendance. If you look around there is no one forcing people through the doors of the church, it is growing.

By the way Mr. Svendsen, honoring a man who attempted murder quite clearly shows your principles in such manners. Maybe you could bring that man who you so admire and let him loose on campus.Maybe interview him for a future article? Indeed, a worthy man to admire Svendsen, maybe tell him to leave his sharpened machete at home though.
Z said:
http://marshill.com/2012/02/13/a-response-regarding-church-discipline

http://marshill.com/2012/01/27/church-discipline-in-the-bible
Source said:
@ sikandro
What are your sources? I know there was a falling out with some professors about an issue, but I have never heard or seen anything related to a "ban"

@chUck
I love that you caught the "bastardization..." sentence too. After reading it multiple times I came to two conclusions. 1. I really liked reading it. 2. It makes no sense in, or out of, context.

I would recommend Mars Hills response before you say they're being abusive. I don't really get that feeling at all..
http://marshill.com/2012/02/13/a-response-regarding-church-discipline

It seems to me that they haven't been talking about Andrew because they probably aren't trying to slander him. Ironically enough, they dismissed some of their leaders after the way Andrew was treated - before any controversy was started. What about the person who Andrew sinned against, is the church responsible for her? Which is more abusive, protecting the sinner or the victim?

@ the Falcon
I am astonished that a newspaper at a Christian school would allow such poor journalism. The author has an opinion, but never backs it up or gives reason why. His history (specifically the 2007 "changes") on Mars Hill is flat out wrong according to research I was able to do just by going on their website. Then to finish it off with some flair he writes three paragraphs to explain why he, and presumably others, should SUPPORT THE ASSASSINATION OF A CHRISTIAN! What?

Never mind my views on the pastor.. What have the editors allowed this newspaper to become? Sure, entitled to opinion, free speech.. got it. You're still going to print about why we should assassinate a Christian?

I think the true test lies in how the church and its members respond. Let's see if they really are abusive..
ChUck said:
Anne, dear: Not everything that grows is good. Mormonism is growing. Islam is growing. Toxic mold is growing.

It's true, no one is forced to attend or join Mars Hill. But evidently there are a few surprises waiting at the checkout desk for those who wish to leave. I understand Mars Hill members must sign a statement that includes agreeing to submit to church discipline, but I wonder in just how much detail the church discipline process is spelled out to them beforehand.
kg said:
ChUck: I wouldn't go so far as to say that Islam is not good. But that's just my personal opinion. I would think Nazis and the Thirdd Reich would be a better example of something that grew incredibly and wasn't good.

sikandro: Mark Driscoll was never banned from campus. Years ago, he started leading small groups on campus. However, the University requires that all outside ministries,events,companies,etc. have a faculty advisor. Driscoll went around these requirements. When the School of Theology approached him about this and requested that he follow our regulations (which are in place for good reason) he got upset and twisted the story: "a Christian University that doesn't let people talk about the Gospel."

I hope that sheds some light on a vague, not often talked about, story.

The opinions represented here do not necessarily represent the views of The Falcon or Seattle Pacific University.

You are required to log in to comment.
If you have not registered yet, you can do so now.

Display name:
Password:
Comment: