ECFA President Dan Busby warns bloggers that making comments angers God.

God 1

After Mars Hill Church members turned to the internet having exhausted all other attempts to dialog with Mars Hill Church leadership, and after Paul Tripp characterized Mars Hill Church as the “most abusive and coercive church” he had every worked with, and after numerous elders filed charges against Mark Driscoll and called for financial transparency (all in vain), guess what the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability was doing?

ECFA was warning that those who criticize the church will anger God.

According to Dan Busby, president of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability (ECFA), blogging about your local church prevents people from getting to see God.

There is a new wild card today. Until recently, churches did not have to contend with hate websites, scathing blog posts, nasty comments on reader forums, online petitions, or spoof social media accounts. All such attacks on churches and their leaders may be based on scanty facts and occur using code names to hide true identities.

Churches are often left without any positive way to respond to incorrect perceptions—especially in the blogosphere. Attackers generally say they want more transparency, but the more information a church provides, the more it is attacked. This is as close to an unresolvable grievance in God’s work as I can imagine.

Those who make derogatory comments about churches and their leaders apparently haven’t learned what it means to anger God. Want to anger God? Get in the way of people who want to see Him. Want to anger God?”  Link

So while former elders of the church call for financial transparency, ECFA pulls out the “God will be angry at you bloggers” card. To the last day of the existence of Mars Hill Church, ECFA continued to certify the church for its integrity, accountability and transparency while former members, elders, and donors were crying out for answers that were not forthcoming because of the church’s determination to avoid transparency – the very thing that ECFA assured donors they would get.

Dan Busby seems to suggest that all internet bloggers and commenters are haters filled with nasty comments. This even though his own comments were from someone’s blog. Busby gives no indication that bloggers and commenters may have good motives and have been perhaps calling for the type of accountability that ECFA is supposed to certify.

Some of the former members of Mars Hill Church have sought to have financial questions answered, but have been thwarted on every attempt. They have tried to meet in private, only to be rebuffed. They have appealed to ECFA via private letter and via petitions, only to be rebuffed. They have appealed using the internet, not only to be rebuffed, but now warned by Dan Busby that to do so will anger God. Watch out, you pesky bloggers, God will get you!

Sadly, the last resort is to appeal to the civil court. It appears that this is the only vehicle that is left hold the leaders of Mars Hill Church accountable – something that their ECFA certification assured its members and donors of.  Given the brazen lack of accountability that Mars Hill Church leaders have portrayed, one begins to wonder who ECFA is protecting, the donor, or the defiant leaders of Mars Hill Church?

It seems that Dan Busby has gone a long way toward holding bloggers accountable, putting a heavy burden on their backs while failing to hold churches that are not transparent and who abuse their members and donors accountable. Will ECFA slowly lose its credibility, accountability and transparency in the process?

[This is same post as the last one, but with a picture that did not look like God – for our brothers and sisters who felt the other post’s depiction of an angry Moses appeared too similar to a picture of God – a potential violation of the 2nd commandment]

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “ECFA President Dan Busby warns bloggers that making comments angers God.

  1. This is a fundamentally dishonest article. The statement wasn’t against bloggers per se but against the haters who use the internet to spread their venom, which may include this blog.

    • John. I was waiting for an avid MH supporter to make your argument. Given the context of what was happening, including repeated calls to ECFA to intervene, you are being dishonest yourself. This was one of several arrows shot to bloggers who have called for accountability. It is the classic version of “Do not touch the Lord’s anointed”. Had there been an ounce of giving bloggers some credit, and your point would have some sway. But there is none. Basically, you bloggers out there, you anger God when you make a stand.

  2. And how dare you take each other to court! When you think you have been wronged, does it make any sense to go before a court that knows nothing of God’s ways instead of a family of Christians? 2 The day is coming when the world is going to stand before a jury made up of followers of Jesus. If someday you are going to rule on the world’s fate, wouldn’t it be a good idea to practice on some of these smaller cases? 3 Why, we’re even going to judge angels! So why not these everyday affairs? 4 As these disagreements and wrongs surface, why would you ever entrust them to the judgment of people you don’t trust in any other way?

    5 I say this as bluntly as I can to wake you up to the stupidity of what you’re doing.

    Is it possible that there isn’t one levelheaded person among you who can make fair decisions when disagreements and disputes come up? I don’t believe it. 6 And here you are taking each other to court before people who don’t even believe in God! How can they render justice if they don’t believe in the God of justice?
    7 These court cases are an ugly blot on your community. Wouldn’t it be far better to just take it, to let yourselves be wronged and forget it? 8 All you’re doing is providing fuel for more wrong, more injustice, bringing more hurt to the people of your own spiritual family.

    Peterson, E. H. (2005). The Message: the Bible in contemporary language (1 Co 6). Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress.
    ~~
    ~~

    6:1 Refers to a dispute that leads to a trial in court. The context is similar to civil litigation, not a criminal case. Since elsewhere Paul certifies that the powers of government have authority to punish criminal behavior (Rom 13:1–7), these disputes likely refer to lawsuits brought against another person that deal with financial loss (see v. 7).

    6:5 Refers to a sense of humiliation. It may also involve a loss of public honor within a community

    Barry, J. D., Heiser, M. S., Custis, M., Mangum, D., & Whitehead, M. M. (2012). Faithlife Study Bible (1 Co 6:1–5). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

    • You are overlooking one fundamental fact. Mars Hill was a corporation obsessed with growth, brand identity and profit at its best, and a straight-up cult at its worst. It was not a church in the way that Paul was using the term. Also, courts in those days we’re run by Pagans. In America the majority of judges consider themselves Christians. The leaders being named in the lawsuit are charlatans with the ethics of the Wolf of Wallstreet. Context people. Context.

      BTW on judgment day I’d rather be sitting next to Rob than Dan Busby. The only “scanty facts” and “incorrect perceptions” that I have seen throughout this debacle, have been coming from the MH execs and now the ECFA camp. What an absurd argument Busby makes, that churches should have no transparency because “the more information the church provides, the more it is attacked”. Seriously Dan? That’s your and the ECFA’s argument for deliberately concealing and obfuscating material data for multi-million dollar churches? It seems to me that the ECFA must represent fairly corrupt churches with a lot to hide if you really believe that. If the church has nothing to hide, more disclosure will not spur attacks. If the church shows excellent stewardship it would result in accolades for great service. Your post speaks volumes about the ECFA ethos and it’s “clients”. Yes. God will be angry Dan. Very angry.

    • BTW if you read the whole article you will notice that Dan, who is the President of ECFA, uses arguments that are similar to those used when churches choose to cover up sex abuse by church leaders. He never concedes that rooting out actual nefarious wolves and banishing them is in the best interest of Christendom. He also reduces the horrible acts of MH executive leadership against its own members as “minutia” only paid attention to by a lone crusty malcontent. Really Dan? More than 8,000 people walked away from their church home but you think it’s all due to false perceptions about minutia? Why does anyone want their seal of approval? It sounds more like a badge of cover-ups.

  3. “Hey haters!”
    “Haters gotta hate.”

    The classic ad hominem attack by evil men who are mad that their schemes for money, power, and control are being uncovered by the disinfecting light of day. As they scatter like cockroaches or rats when someone turns on a light in a darkened room, they call those turning on the light “haters.”

  4. Personally, I wonder why I would want anyone to know Christ, if Christ actually approves of the type of scams that Busby, and the senior leaders at MH approved and participated in. Obviously, Christ does not approve of these scams. Keep in mind, MH Global, in a real world situation (Fortune 500), would probably be considered fraud, and the book scam (with church funds) would probably be consider fraud and RICO. Are Christians supposed to participate in the cover up of potentially criminal behavior?

  5. Pingback: How to Choose a Church | Wondering Eagle

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s