The Mars Hill membered featured in the Seattle Times article is Bina Ellefsen, an immigration rights attorney. A married woman, who is not being oppressed by the church even though her wedding was officiated by Mark Driscoll and coordinated by Judy Abolafya. gasp. The article in it's entirety can be read here http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003268582_malath21m.html

I've copied a section of the article:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

He waited and waited"

Among those he contacted was Bina Hanchinamani Ellefsen, an attorney with the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project who said her agency usually doesn't take refugee-resettlement cases like these.

She remembers the day Malath came to her office, unannounced, and waited more than an hour to see any of the attorneys who might help him.

"He was extremely persistent," Ellefsen said. "He waited and waited and waited.

"We knew this was a tough case. It was the week of Christmas. He didn't have anywhere else to go."

Rita Stewart in the offices of U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott became a liaison between immigration authorities overseas and Malath and Ellefsen, and was able to learn why the children had been turned down.

Immigration officials had noted a discrepancy with their names: In the application he completed in the mid-1990s to come to the U.S., Ater Malath listed his siblings by their Dinka names, not knowing what Christian names they had been given after they were baptized. The children's own resettlement forms listed them by their Christian names.

What's more, the children had no one advocating on their behalf, and had not adequately conveyed the horror of their experience in Sudan or their fear of returning, Ellefsen said.

Shortly, immigration officials were recommending a DNA test to prove the Malaths were siblings.

In Uganda, Peter went to the United Nations offices to collect the results after a second interview.

"I slipped the paper out of the envelope and closed my eyes," he said.

In a rare about-face, Homeland Security had reversed its December 2004 decision.

You know what KingMissle, you're right.... I'm almost positive that Mars Hill and Christianity will fade along with all of its hipster followers. Oh... wait... Christianity has been around for thousands of years. People may get tired of this church, thus the existence of dying churches, but it's not the churches and the church leaders that Christians worship or follow. So although churches may fade out, Jesus hasn't faded out for thousands of years. We're still going strong!

I also highly doubt that when I'm old and grey, I'll regret being a follower of Christ and what it's taught me. I care about people and spend my days at work handling grants that contribute to programs all around the world that attempt to improve the life of people no matter what religion or race i.e. HIV/AIDS programs, Tsunami and hurricane relief, water and food programs, economic micro -loans. As for the morality post, most Christians don't believe that the end of the world is coming tomorrow. Actually, the Bible tells us that we won't know when it's coming so live your life, and enjoy your blessings (so if we are blessed enough to get a house take care of it.)

Have you ever heard of Billy Graham? He’s traveled the world as a Christian evangelist. Now he’s really old and has arthritis and Parkinson’s but, he’s still joyful and full of hope and love for other people. I’m sure that I’ll regret a lot of the mistakes that I’ve made over the years, but Jesus won’t be one of them.

Go ahead... Bash me with negative posts now.

Lauren Sandler brings out some good points.

Mars Hill, after all, is just another big American white-majority

"yoof" church stuck in 1988 but pretending to be modern.

As a European and Australian, I find it cheapens Christianity.

As for Mark Driscoll, so-called pastor, he looks like a slick

business man. In any case, I could win a theological argument

against him in my sleep. Driscoll's followers, however, tend

to be very young. Are they easier to control in their ignorance?

This white-majority growth transfer church appears to attract

many defensive people (see angry letters) and I would like it if

Salon spoke to more former followers next time.

Jesus Christ, of course, taught us to question authority. Is Mark

Driscoll above and beyond accountability? Of course not and this is

why more people have to start asking the difficult questions. I hope

Sandler's writings give people the confidence to do so.

From Friday, 9/22: see the right side of the page under "previous programs".

http://www.godandculture.com/

This article is an unfixedly floating (and ultimately insignificant) explitive, blurted out against a massively misunderstood social group. I've read White Supremacist essays that are more objectively based; and no, I don't believe that that says much for article in question.

The silly pseduo-journalism all comes to a head when it is asserted that Driscoll describes Jesus as "an uncompromising disciplinarian who demands utter obedience from his followers in exchange for rescue from an eternity in hell." I imagine that if one did so much as even pay attention in High School European History, they would at least know that a Reformed Protestant does not believe that salvation is accuired by acts of obedience but rather by faith in Christ. That was basically the point of Martin Luther's life. That works-of-obedience-equals-Protestant-salvation misnomer is enough to earn a C- minus on a history exam; so why is it printed in a major publication? I'm not sure, but it probably has something to do with the fact that most readers wouldn't think twice because the article is only reguritating to them what they have already assumed about the matter--which seems also to be what the reporter has assumed from the very get-go.

(A brief sidenote should also be made regarding the very feeble attempt at diagnosing the course of American Evangelical movements: It is obvious to me that the writer of this article bears little-to-no scholarly knowledge of American religious history. As I read, I winced at all of the contrasts and comparisons that were neglicted in the discussion. A bit more knowledge could even have made good amunition if only the writer were aware of such history.)

This article contains a very thin and brittle skeleton of real reporting, filled in with a connective tissue of popular presumption. I found that nearly every single sentence contained a bigoitously broad-stroking clause, set to effect the defamation of Mars Hill Church. If this is supposed to be Gonzo Journalism, I'll shut up and enjoy the show. But nobody seems to be attatching such a literary genre to the article at hand.