Is Mars Hill Under Investigation By the State Attorney General?

Becky Garrison

A demonstrator outside Mars Hill's Bellevue church this August.

As Paul Constant once noted, the answer to sensational headlines that are framed as questions is almost always no.

But last week, former members of Mars Hill Church reported that they had been in touch with the Washington State Attorney General's Office about the church's "global fund" scandal, in which the church raised millions of dollars, supposedly for "church planting" in India and Africa, and then was forced to admit that the "preponderance" of the money never made it there. (For nonbelievers, the fact that the money was going to be spent on evangelism instead of basic, non-metaphysical needs seems aggravating from the beginning, but c'est la religion.)

At first, some interpreted Mars Hill's confession charitably—that maybe the church was in a financial crunch, that they meant to send the money abroad, but that the growing tide of indignation and anger inside the church had hurt their bottom line and they needed to keep the global fund money to stay afloat.

But an internal Mars Hill memo that was leaked a few weeks ago indicates that raising lots of money for "highly visible, marketable projects," spending a small percentage of that money on those projects, and making sure the exact numbers would "not [be] communicated to the public" was the plan all along.

"For a relatively low cost (e.g. $10K/month)," the memo read, "supporting a few missionaries and benevolence projects would serve to deflect criticism, increase goodwill, and create opportunities to influence and learn from other ministries." (The church's FAQ about the global fund says: "If you gave previously and were intending that your gifts would be used solely for international efforts, we sincerely apologize for the confusion caused by a lack of clarity on our part.")

Alison Dempsey-Hall of the state attorney general's office said she could not comment on whether Mars Hill is currently under investigation, but that the office has the authority to enforce the Charitable Solicitations Act (RCW 19.09):

The AGO is limited in the types of legal action it can take against churches because unlike charitable organizations, churches do not have to comply with most provisions of the CSA. The provisions of the CSA churches do have to comply with are those that prohibit: (1) making false, misleading or deceptive statements in solicitations for donations, (2) failing to fully and fairly disclose the identity of the entity on whose behalf the solicitation is made, (3) placing solicitation phone calls before 8:00 AM or after 9:00 PM, and (4) harassing, intimidating or tormenting any person in the course of soliciting donations.

A lot of the furor and schadenfreude about the recent Mars Hill scandals has been about people's feelings—church members feeling betrayed and sad, the recently resigned Pastor Mark Driscoll feeling embattled and misunderstood, the rest of us wondering why it took church insiders so long to recognize what we have been saying for years.

People's feelings are important and all, but this is a much more material question: If I intentionally raise millions of dollars for a "global fund" that I say is going to help people in Asia and Africa, but then keep the "preponderance" of that money, am I just an irritating slimeball?

Or am I a criminal?