My concerns in this post are less about one more reason why Mars Hill finds itself in a fix right now, and more about the corruption of evangelical megachurches. It is still, after all I have seen, beyond my comprehension that it is considered to be business as usual to use the church as a place of personal enrichment. These ministers are not just making a living, they are living the good life with little earthly accountability for how God’s money is spent.

Many people have commented on the memo from Sutton Turner recommending a $650k salary for Mark Driscoll in 2013. However, beyond the extravagance of the salary, something else caught my eye:

MARS HILL CHURCH

In my previous experience as an Executive Pastor for a Board Member Church of ARC (Association of Related Churches), I was privy to the compensation studies of many of the top 50 largest churches in the United States. These Board Member pastors preached between 15 to 30 weekends per year. All of these lead pastors spent much of their time on the road generating additional income via honorariums, to the detriment of their local church. Their churches also frequently paid other pastors honorariums to cover the pulpit during those weeks when the lead pastor was away, which drove up the total cost of the preaching role.

We have a very rare gift at Mars Hill Church: our lead pastor wants to teach at Mars Hill Church nearly every weekend of the year. I recommend that the Board of Advisors and Accountability reward Pastor Mark’s behavior with a higher salary. If the Board deems it appropriate, I would also support compensation exceeding my recommendation.

In this memo, Sutton Turner pulled back the curtain to a megachurch universe few of us will ever know. In doing so, he disclosed something of the ministry practices of Board Members of the Association of Related Churches. Apparently being a lead pastor at a megachurch is a platform for celebrity status that leads to the preaching circuit where the real money is to be made. Turner said such jet setting was not beneficial to the local church and “drove up the total cost of the preaching role.” I have no doubt that he is correct.

Read More