Is Mars Hill Dissolving or Positioning Itself for the Return of Mark Driscoll?

Who Owns This Place:

In the last few days, the leadership of Mars Hill Church has announced that Mars Hill will be dissolved as a central institution with satellite campuses receiving a video feed of teaching from a lead pastor. They have determined that the individual satellite campuses will decide whether or not they wish to continue to exist as independent churches, and if so, they will have to assume the facility mortgage in order to retain ownership of their building, and will not be allowed to use the Mars Hill name.
This brings up some very serious questions about the future of the Mars Hill “brand” and how future ministry activities by Mark Driscoll and the current executive elders/BOAA may affect the future satellite churches. Keep in mind that according to public announcements, there appears to be a conflict between the conclusions of the Board of Elders and the Board of Advice and Accountability regarding Mark Driscoll’s fitness for ongoing ministry. It is not hard to imagine a scenario where pro-Driscoll leaders make the decision to dissolve Mars Hill as it currently exists to accomplish the following:

1. Shed millions of dollars of debt and payroll obligations that current giving levels cannot sustain.
   
2. Remove individuals who want to hold Driscoll accountable for his behavior from positions of authority and influence in the organization
   
3. Retain ownership of the Mars Hill media library and name for future use.

Mars Hill 2.0?

Then, come January 2015 (or whatever future date Driscoll decides is an appropriate time for appearances sake), Driscoll and those leaders who are loyal to him can launch Mars Hill 2.0 somewhere in the Pacific Northwest or Southern California. It is not unrealistic to expect that if Mark Driscoll were to launch a new church (or take on of the satellites over) in the near future that he would have in excess of 1,000 members at the first meeting.

Dave Bruskas has been named the "interim lead pastor" of Mars Hill Bellevue and Matt Rogers is part of the leadership team at that satellite.  Both have been fiercely loyal to Mark driscoll. Is it too far-fetched to assume that the permanent pastor of the Bellevue church will be Mark Driscoll?

Can the executive leadership of Mars Hill be trusted?

If I were a member of Mars Hill Church, I would be asking the following the following questions:

1. What authority do the current leaders have to make this decision? The Executive Elder Board was made up of Mark Driscoll, Dave Bruskas and Sutton Turner. With Driscoll and Turner gone, how is Bruskas authorized to make this decision? If he is not making it alone, who is, and are they authorized by the church constitution and bylaws to do so? Shouldn’t an executive board be created out of a group of people who have demonstrated the ability to make decisions based on what is best for the entire membership of Mars Hill? Can the current leadership that has made this decision (even if it wasn’t made by Bruskas alone) be trusted to take the best interest of Mars Hill church as a whole into account?
   
2. Who owns the name Mars Hill? If the satellite churches are not going to be allowed to use the name (and who has made that decision, btw), who will be allowed to use it? Is the name going to be used by any other person, group, or entity that may be able to capitalize off the “brand” in a way that may be detrimental to the satellite churches by drawing supporters that would otherwise be a part of the satellites? What effort will be made to prevent Mark Driscoll from starting a new church named Mars Hill?
   
3. What restrictions have been placed on Mark Driscoll from competing with or taking over one of the satellite churches? In the past, Mars Hill forced outgoing elders to sign non-compete clauses that prevented them from taking ministry positions in the region around Mars Hill campuses in order to receive severance pay. According to reports, Driscoll will receive a very generous severance package that provides him with a year’s full pay and benefits. Will he be similarly prevented from taking a ministry position or starting a church that can conceivably draw people who would otherwise support the satellite churches? If not, why not?
   

4. While the idea of non-compete clauses may seem distasteful to many Christians, the reality is that they prevent individuals who harbor a grudge or possess a hidden agenda from creating the division and strife in the church that naturally occurs when a trusted and beloved former leader becomes involved in another church in close proximity to the original location. The satellite churches stand to suffer tangible harm in loss of recognition, membership and financial support if Driscoll is allowed to start up a new ministry (especially with the name Mars Hill) anywhere in the general region of the satellite churches.
5. Who is making the decision that the current campus pastors and elder leaders will continue to lead the satellite churches? A few weeks ago, nine elders of the church stood up and demanded accountability in the church for the dishonest and abusive actions of Mark Driscoll and the executive elders. Are those who were carrying out the dishonesty and spin being allowed to continue to serve in elder leadership at Mars Hill? Shouldn’t the members start to have SOME say in how the satellite churches will be led, and by whom?
   
6. What is Mars Hill’s current relationship to Mark Driscoll and specifically, how is the current leadership of Mars Hill handling the issue of his refusal to submit to a plan of restoration outlined by the elders? If he were a member or staff member of the church who was “under church discipline”, he would not be allowed to simply resign his membership and move on to his next church/ministry position. Rather, Mars Hill would not allow him to simply leave in peace. Similar to the issue of non-compete clauses, this may seem distasteful to some Christians, but Driscoll’s issues are ongoing and public. What steps are going to be taken to compel him to repent and seek reconciliation?
   

The scandals at Mars Hill have been a slow motion train-wreck for the last two years. In that time, the leadership of Mars Hill and Mark Driscoll have proven that they simply cannot be trusted to be honest, forthright and transparent in their dealings with the members of Mars Hill and the public. Trusting that any decision being that is made is actually in the interests of the church members without consideration of the leaders self-interest is not naïve, it’s delusional.

Sam Smith