A great post about authoritarian and/or narcissitic narsistist narcissistic leadership can be found in Bill Kinnon’s blog HERE.  (Grandma, how do you spell “narcissistic”?  “Badly, dear, badly.”)  Unsurprisingly, the post uses many of the events documented in the January NYT  article as examples.

A “sad but true” snippet:

“One of the positions people with Narcissistic Personality Disorder – extreme narcissists – are attracted to is church leadership. It is one of the best places to practice irrational authority unchallenged – as these leaders convince you they are on a mission from God.”

-PH

Hats off to Molly Worthen for writing an amazingly even-handed article about Mars Hill Church and the various themes and memes that run through it.   The article “Who Would Jesus Smack Down?” appeared in The New York Times “Magazine” section on Sunday, January 12, 2009.  MH/Driscoll admirers will consider the article very complimentary.  Detractors will find the article to give clear voice to the aspects that grieve them most.

One quote in particular broke PH’s heart:   “At one suburban campus that I visited, a huge yellow cross dominated center stage — until the projection screen unfurled and Driscoll’s face blocked the cross from view.”

Driscoll’s face blocked the cross from view.  In a nutshell: the very reason so many faithful, active, and involved members have departed the hip halls of MHC.

Click HERE to read the full article in the NYT.

Or those in church leadership simply wondering if THEY are crazy.  Trust PH…if you are wondering this, you probably are not.

PH has received excellent  feedback from those who have read book by Dr. John K. Setser:  “Broken Hearts, Shattered Trust/Workplace Abuse of Staff in the Church”.  If any are interested in receiving their  own copy, Dr. Setser is  happy to send on at no charge (at this point).  Just email him at johnsetser@hotmail.com and ask.

Dr. Setser is the founder of Baranbas Ministries: http://www.shatteredtrust.com .

The below was submitted to PH via email. Since each fact checks out and the points are extremely relevant and important, PH is posting the article.

********************************

Mark Driscoll keeps changing the story.

Just as a suspected adulterer lies to cover his sin to appear innocent, Mark Driscoll and the elders are changing the story as they defend their actions.

This is illuminating. It shows that after 5 months there is still pressure to explain their actions. It also shows that Mark Driscoll and the elders are ashamed of the original story they put out and have to come up with better reasons why they fired Pastor Paul and Pastor Bent.

And… story is changing…again. Mark Driscoll now states publicly that the two pastors were fired for poor job performance. Why did we not hear this when they were fired 5 months ago? Because Mark Driscoll did not think of saying it 5 months ago – it was not even on his mind at that point. Furthermore, it never would have passed the laugh test then. They had both received good job performance reviews just a couple of months before their firings. We members have watched these men work harder than any two Elders we know.

So why this new lie from Mark Driscoll?

The new lie is being presented because the truth shows the actions taken to be sinful and wrong. He cannot stick to that story because it is shameful, and he therefore is still looking for the story that the hearers will believe, so that folks will just let this go. Now, he teaches young Acts 29 pastors that “just as he had to recently do, sometimes you have to remove elders even though there is no charge against them – they are simply not doing their job.”

Below is the evolution of what we have been told. Read it, and grieve for the sin of our leaders.

1. September 2007:The men were “fired for sin” Not moral sin but sin that serious enough to fire them. We members were not told what the sin was so as to protect the two elders and to avoid fueling gossip. (Munson letter on members site)
2. October 2007: It was all about the bylaws. In the resulting confusion and consternation from the membership, a long time member known for her respectful manner asked to see a copy of the bylaws under which she was governed and these men were fired, she was denied the opportunity. Instead, Mark Driscoll told her in an extremely patronizing tone on the members’ site that she had unintentionally stumbled on the root problem of the matter, the by-laws. (Driscoll post on members site)
   
3. October 2007: Violating Elder Protocol. Members were told that these men violated elder protocol by discussing the proposed by-laws with the church lawyer without the required permission. Additionally, these men did not have and that have a proper respect (an “unhealthy distrust”) for their leaders. Elder protocol was also violated when one of these men allowed one member to see the confidential proposed new bylaws so as to ask for his insight on the proposed changes. (Conversations with various elders, the 145 page document)
4. November 2, 2007: “Posturing and Grabbing at Power and Money.” The Elders presented the infamous 145 page document in which they endeavored to explain their actions. A thorough reading of this document does not imply or even hint that the men had inadequate job performance. Instead, the newest allegation was that the men were posturing for and attempting to grab power and money. This latest allegation had never been mentioned prior to this. A review of the facts shows that that there is absolutely no evidence that this accusation from Mark Driscoll is anything but a lie.* It was just another desperate attempt to pacify the members and put out the fire that they had started.
   

   *A review of the facts shows clearly that if anyone can be accused of grabbing power and money it is Mark Driscoll and the other 4 executive elders. The very men that fired the two pastors and then proceeded to level charges against them are the same men that gained extraordinary power and additional money under the new by-laws. Under the existing bylaws, the executive 5 had only one vote of twenty four. The Executive 5 would have 1 vote of 5 under the new by-laws. The new by-laws stripped all the other elders of any real power. Pastor Paul and Pastor Bent would gain no power or money were the existing bylaws kept in place.
   

5. November/December 2007: “Paul Petry refuses to be reconciled.” This lie has been fairly effective, therefore the elders have kept saying it. James Harleman has said that Pastor Paul has refused to be reconciled despite the elders seeking reconciliation innumerable times. Tim Quiring states that Pastor Paul is divisive, angry, vindictive and “not responded to the grace being offered to him by the Mars Hill leadership.” (the 145 page document, the Shunning letter.) In fact neither of these men have made any contact with Pastor Paul at all in the 5 months since the firings. This is true of almost all the elders. Contrary to Mr. Harleman’s allegation, the number of attempts on the part of Mars Hill have been been pathetically few and usually adversarial in nature. When Pastor Paul did agree to meet with Elder “x”, this elder changed the terms of the meeting and refused to meet with Pastor Paul under the originally agreed upon terms. The Elders have refused to meet with Pastor Paul. While Elder x was trying to arrange this meeting with Pastor Paul, the Elders simultaneously were issuing a public announcement calling for Pastor Paul to be shunned by the members of Mars Hill. This is the grace referred to by Tim Quiring?
   

   The “refusal to be reconciled” line has run its course and is becoming weak and non-credible.
   

6. February 2007: “Inadequate Job Performance” (Mark Driscoll – Acts 29 conference)
   

And the story gets spun and respun.

These various evolutions of history were occurring as the Elders were being challenged that the charges were silly, the trial not fair and just by any reasonable person’s standards, and that the process was simply a mistake by naïve elders at best or blatantly sinful and cruel at worst. Each new lie has confirmed that the trial had merely demonstrated the sin resident in the heart.

Of course these stories will eventually cease to work because no member would expect a party so badly treated to willingly subject himself to further abuse. Many of us members have inquired of both fired pastors and heard that the Elders are stubborn and refusing to meet or yield. The story told by these men give a totally different perspective of the events. Both men have called for elders to cease their lies and repent of their actions.

The original charges and the ensuing actions taken by the elders cannot stand the test of biblical scrutiny.

We now hear that Mark Driscoll, who clearly and publically voiced to the church his anger towards the two elders in his Sept 30^th sermon before he even fired telling us that in fact the men were actually fired for poor job performance.

Well. This latest lie will not stick either.

What will the next lie be?

PH: Are these the actions of men qualified to be Elders?

And then, there is the environment that has been fostered in Mars Hill.

Shut Up & Do What You’re Told

Drink the Kool Aid

PH knows many (mostly former) members who were leveled for respectfully, but vigorously expressing either doubt or dissent with the way that the firing of two beloved pastors was handled. These members were betrayed by the leadership that they had previously chosen to trust. Many of these members were previously not even on MH radar, as their many years of membership history had demonstrated them to be what would be considered “model members.” The members that reaped the devastation during these times were not “immature Christians” as the Elders of MH have tried to portray. Many were, in fact, mature Christians with proven track records in ministry leadership that surpass Mark Driscoll in time and quality. (Despite their never having fostered a “mega-church.) PH would think that an outcry from this demographic would be taken very seriously by leadership within a church body.

Are the men who perpetrated or ignored such betrayal qualified to be Elders?

Wow…in less than 2 minutes, this video says more about the injustices instigated by and under Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill Church than PH could write in 2 pages! Video: Major vs Minor Sins

The topic question can be read one of two ways: Are these guys in sin – OR – is the sin that they are in Major or Minor. PH will let you choose how to read it.

PH raises two follow-up questions, regardless of your read on the topic question.

1. Are the men who participated in the firings and trial qualified to be elders? And,
2. Are a) knowing and active disobedience of biblical principles, followed by b) false representations perpetrated to cover up the disobedience MAJOR or MINOR sins, by Driscoll’s definitions?

Controlling Personalities in the Church: The Warning Signs

The second in a series of articles on the Wittenberg Gate website

Authoritarian Leadership and Lack of Accountability

“God, knowing our weak frame, has given us a structure for church authority. He tells us to have a multitude of counselors, all under the authority of King Jesus. Abusers, however, wish to operate on their own. They want to be king of the congregation Elders/Deacons. Their approach to this may be very subtle. A church council may be in place, but each elder is hand-picked and known to be cooperative. (goodbye and good riddance to the problematic pastors, AND any outspoken members!) They may be inexperienced churchmen who got their elder training only from this pastor,
(Does this sound familiar? Perhaps Jamie Munson? Anybody else? PH needs both hands and a couple of toes to count them!) or overworked businessmen who are relieved to let the pastor make all the decisions. The elders themselves may be manipulated and lied to and have information kept away from them” (not to mention the membership!)

If you need more information to decide the answer to the topic question, check out the articles starting at:   http://dory.typepad.com/wittenberg_gate/2005/05/controlling_per.html

Toxic Churches
A toxic church exists when “doing” becomes more important than “being.” In a toxic church, service to God is viewed as keeping church systems functioning, God’s blessing is seen as bigger budgets for bigger buildings to accommodate more people, and looking successful replaces love as the key ingredient.  In a church like this, the church building is the place where God resides, and ministry success is measured by offerings received and the number of seats filled. A healing church speaks of Christ residing in people, not in buildings or programs. It encourages participants to be real and genuine, not appearance-oriented or performance-driven. As pastor and author Jerry Cook states, “Love means accepting people the way they are for Jesus’ sake.” When churches emphasize loving, caring, and “being;” staff associates can enjoy being part of a healing organization. However, when they emphasize performance, appearance, and “doing;” associates risk being abused by the organization’s wounding dynamics.

On the surface, it is impossible to know if a church functions as a healing or wounding organization. Even internally, the situation can be masked. This puts a prospective staff associate in a vulnerable position. It is only through active involvement that an individual can really discern the true nature of a church organization. If a person looking to work for a healing church joins one that is toxic, he or she is in for a rude awakening.

One young man’s experience while interning as a staff associate illustrates this dilemma. He had entered a church leadership program that promised senior pastor mentoring, Bible study, and a closer walk with Jesus, but once on the job, he discovered that his church was not the organization it had appeared to be. Instead of being loved and cared for, he  was treated like a slave and expected to facilitate the church’s promotional agenda. To his dismay, he realized that he had become indentured to a corporate minded leader intent on developing a growth-oriented organization. He felt betrayed and used. He ended his internship and stopped attending church. He explained that he loved God, but no longer viewed church as a safe place. Given his experience, it is hard to disagree.

Obviously, not all churches are religious machines. Most ministerial organizations genuinely desire to love God and serve people. However, toxic churches that put organizational success above the needs of people do exist and their numbers are growing. Staff associates who work for toxic churches are in danger of being exploited and mistreated. While there is no way to tell from the outside if a church is a toxic place or a place of healing, I believe the factor that most often plays a role in making a church toxic is when that church exchanges their spiritual paradigm for a corporate mandate.

Corporate Mandate vs. Spiritual Paradigm
God is Spirit, and His ways are unsearchable. His blessings, although very real, are not always tangible or even visible because by nature they are spiritual and organic. God’s blessings are not to be measured or analyzed, they are meant to be experienced and lived. Churches that forget this in favor of qualifying and quantifying God’s blessings ultimately abandon a “spiritual paradigm” in favor of a “corporate mandate” that measures success in terms of ever-increasing assets. A corporate mandate is appropriate if the goal is measurable success; not so if the goal is to love God and serve people. This is because the aim of a corporate mandate is, above all else, to benefit the organization. Success for these organizations is defined in financial, material, and numeric terms. The feelings, hopes, and needs of people are of little consequence under this mandate. Of prime importance is making sure that the organization survives and thrives. A church, however, is called to embrace a spiritual paradigm, not a corporate mandate. As disciples of Christ, we are commanded in John 13:34 and 1 John 3:23 to love fellow Christians in the same manner that Christ loves them. Churches are called to exercise faith, trusting God to lead, guide, and provide. They are not to measure, strategize, or lean on human understanding (Prov. 3:5-7). When a church organization becomes preoccupied with such things as promotion, production, and ministry image, it abandons a spiritual paradigm.Churches do need to be organized. Whenever people come together there must be leadership, rules, and structure. The distinction between a healthy church and one being run under a corporate mandate is that instead of being served, people become slaves to a mindset that puts organizational need above the needs of people. Embracing a corporate mandate elevates the importance of the organization and motivates leaders to depreciate the value of loving God and serving people. Once this occurs, the organization takes on a self-serving mentality; meaning, whatever needs to be done to protect the organization is legitimized and spiritualized.

There are many ways for a corporate mindset to overtake a church. For example, it can happen when the hard work connected with a season of growth causes the church to lose sight of its original purpose. This happened to one church led by a pastor whom we will call Tom. He started the church by espousing such ideals as unconditional love and acceptance. The church’s vision statement emphasized joy, community, and commitment to Christ. The church grew because Tom was committed to these ideals. Everything went well until the church became prosperous enough to purchase a building. Once the building was purchased, it became Tom’s obsession. Money, remodeling, and filling seats were all he could think about. Subtly, ministry packaging and a promotional agenda became more important than caring for people. Today, the vision statement hangs in the foyer as only a sad reminder of what the church used to be. The promotional agenda still operates as a demonstration of what a church can become.

What happened to Tom and his church is not uncommon. Many churches begin by espousing spiritual and relational goals only to end up embracing a corporate mandate. It can happen slowly and imperceptibly, that in the name of doing “God’s work” conscience is violated, integrity breached, or a situation manipulated. Such things happen all the time. For example, on any given Sunday it is not uncommon for senior pastors to garner emotional testimonies that “capitalize on the emotional bonds that…take advantage of people’s warm feelings.” This is done in the name of leading people to Christ or raising money to continue the church’s ministry. Manipulating emotions for the purpose of scripting a desired response is antithetical to the teachings of Christ. Nevertheless, it is often accepted and justified as being in the best interest of the church. Leaders who use these techniques are blind to the fact that in so doing, they are exchanging a spiritual paradigm for a corporate mandate. For these leaders organizational success may not be the stated goal, but it becomes the goal by default. In this environment, the staff is especially vulnerable because the goals of the organization are set, not by associates, but by the leaders in the power structure.______________________________________________________________Broken Hearts Shattered Trust identifies causes while compassionately embracing both sinner and sinned against.For a free copy of the book please send an e-mail with your
mailing address to: johnsetser@hotmail.com

]]>

Elder

el•der (el’der) n. 1. Elected or appointed governing officer within a church. See 1 Timothy 3: 1-7, Titus 1: 6-9 Under the new bylaws, most of the men that Mars Hill Church refers to as “elders”

Deacons
dea•con (de’ken) n. 1. Attendant or assistant to church leaders. See 1 Timothy 3: 8

(The above definitions are found HERE on the Mars Hill Church website.)

Under the new bylaws, most of the men that Mars Hill Church refers to as “elders” are more accurately referred to as “executive deacons.” With the exception of the Executive 5 (Mark Driscoll, Scott Thomas, Jamie Munson, Tim Belz and Bubba Jennings) no elder has any power of governance. Maybe this isn’t such a big deal…except for the 2000 or so members who signed up for a plurality of elders, in which many men had governing power, and held each other accountable. Of course, it could be said that arrangement didn’t help…after all, these 18+ men voted to give up their power to govern.

In case any folks out there are interested in contacting the Mars Hill leadership and are brave enough to actually do so, their contact information is found HERE .

This first clip, found HERE ; displays one of the areas where Mark Driscoll is especially strong: using displays of so-called humility to further his agenda from the pulpit. Was Mark truly repentant for his pride when this was delivered? It is possible – unlike the Mars Hill Elders, PH does not have the gift of “immaculate perception” (Immaculate Perception: The opinion that the way the one sees things is obviously the way God sees things.) Still, ReallySad1 makes some excellent points in the “about this video” section of the clip:

Mark Driscoll got accolades for his statement regarding his lack of humility.
But if you listen carefully, this set up the church to hear that in fact his followers, especially those that were questioning the recent firings of two beloved pastors, should be ignored because of their lack of humility.

He is saying “I have not been humble, I am proud. Therefore because I have been proud many of you members are also proud. So we will not listen to you and your concerns, even if valid, because of your pride. I repent of my pride and will now teach you to be humble.” In fact, he talks about how the church will humble you or exalt you. In fact that is not the church’s role at all.

This sermon set up members to hear: You are saying good things, your concerns may be valid, BUT!!! You are not humble therefore what you say will disregarded.

This may be the height of arrogance. Mark Driscoll (as Pastor) can just deem you to be proud. He can therefore disregard what you say. What arrogance!

True humility assumes the best of your brother. Mark Driscoll and his elders have disregarded the concerns and council of many members by accusing of them not having a humble spirit. Sadly, this is in the context of preaching from a text in which we see Jesus taking on the form a servant and demonstrating the humility that pastors ought to have.