Tony Jones on Mark Driscoll: What came first, the thug or the theology?

I don’t believe I could possibly improve upon Danica’s stellar explication of McLaren’s non-apology apology. However, seeing as there are clearly people in this discussion thread who are disinclined to lend equal weight and credibility to the words of a woman when there’s a perfectly good white man about I will endeavor to break down one particularly telling statement (to me, at least) in McLaren’s non-apology apology so that, perhaps, something might pierce the fog McLaren is attempting to deploy as a defensive shroud.

In the first paragraph of his comment, Brian McLaren wrote, “I was one of several people who had been asked by both Tony and Julie in 2008 to help them in a time of marital crisis. We tried our best to help, but the marriage didn’t survive.”

I don’t know Brian McLaren personally so I’m left to discern what sort of person he is based upon his conduct—a practice I strongly recommend in any and all cases regardless of how well one knows another person, to be quite honest. Upon reading the above-quoted statement, my first thought was, “Oh, he’s that guy.” There have been a breathtaking number of “that guys” in this comment thread, but McLaren managed to distinguish himself as a real oner in that category merely by having the audacity to offer that statement in a public forum. You’ve heard of a man’s man, I’m sure. McLaren has now shown himself to be a “that guy’s that guy.”

McLaren first offers a not-terribly-subtle claim of authority by which to establish his bona fides, and to stave off any challenges to his account, one would assume. But the thing which leaps out at me in the statement above is the second sentence. My training, academically speaking, is in logic and rhetoric, and having taught first year college students I tend to read everything as though I’m grading. It’s a habit I have been unable to quit despite not having stood before a classroom in more than a decade.

Having offered that caveat, what I would ask everyone kindly to take note of is the shifting of responsibility between the first clause and the second clause of that second sentence. In clause one, McLaren states that he, along with the other Emergent leaders Julie has named, tried their very best. However, in clause two he doesn’t continue by saying that those leaders failed in their task. No, it was the marriage which failed. While most people wouldn’t notice it, this is a crucial shift, and it was deftly done.

It seems to me that McLaren has tipped his hand rather significantly. His shift from active to passive voice is difficult to detect unless one obsessively notices such things, but its effect on the reader is no less powerful for that fact. Just as a book cannot write itself, a marriage cannot fail of its own volition. The individuals who have entered a marriage make choices which directly influence whether or not they are able to maintain that relationship, so it’s the actors within the relationship who succeed or fail. Likewise, those who attempt to intercede to save a marriage can either succeed or fail in that endeavor.

By dint of subtle phrasing, McLaren has not only moved to absolve Tony Jones of any responsibility for the end of his marriage. He has also attempted to relieve his colleagues of any responsibility in failing to save it. Of course, that was the point of his entire comment. Had McLaren even implied that there was fault to be assigned then he would necessarily have left himself open to being questioned as to who was at fault and how. Assuming he offered clarification (doubtful), he would then have to defend both his judgement regarding who was at fault and the nature of that fault, and that leaves him entirely vulnerable to Julie’s counterpoints. The real peril for McLaren comes from Julie’s claims that he and the other Emergent leaders in question did not, in fact, attempt to save her marriage, but instead took an active role in ending it in favor of a pairing they found more suitable for their friend and colleague. For McLaren, that is a slippery slope he most certainly does not wish to find himself on since answering one question would inevitably lead to him having to answer more, and with each successive answer the slope beneath him would become steeper and slipperier. Most importantly, though, is the fact that his shift in the second sentence betrays a knowledge on his part that there is some amount of damaging information which is rising dangerously close to the surface, hence his refusal to offer details despite taking the trouble to appear on this thread.

Seeing that Julie has made it clear in multiple comments here that she is entirely willing to open the books for anyone who cares to challenge her version of events, we’re left with only one conclusion. Despite McLaren’s posture of showing reasonable and responsible judgement, allowing full disclosure is very likely to lead to not insignificant damage to Tony Jones. That McLaren is now publicly circling the wagons would also seem to indicate that there is substantial risk of damage for the others Julie has named as being accessories to the wrongs committed against her. The potential for damage must go well beyond dings to reputation.

Brian would have been better served by just saying nothing. It’s like every time someone with an EC financial / power / tribal interest comments here, they just further confirm the history of control and obfuscation and corruption and abuses that have remained hidden, but are now coming to light.

If anyone else wants to come here and “apologize” please don’t embarrass yourself, or insult the emotional intelligence of the very bright and empathic people here, many who have faced real abuse at the hands of religious leaders. If you can’t simply apologize without pathetic caveats and legal-religious-psychological babble-weaseling, then just don’t say anything.

First, context and full disclosure, this is me: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergentvillage/2013/06/i-am-emergent-village/

Thank you all for sharing this space and having this conversation. I have read every comment. I can not speak to the facts of any of it, aside from two things. 1. Having experienced Doug’s attempts to silence and shutdown internal critique on the EV facebook page. And 2. The silencing, shaming, abuse and lies experienced by Lost Voice.

Change doesn’t come from us all being polite decorum and waiting out turn to speak. Change and healing are most often messy and require that all the shit be brought to the surface and sorted through. I was reminded of this recently in workshops with both Chris Crass (Collective Liberation) and Pete Rollins (yes, THAT guy).

I’ve been rather disconnected from the EV world the past 6 months or so, but I know that there are those working to challenge oppression, misogyny and white supremacy. This is good work. However, it does not preclude the damage that has been done over the years in the name of EV. We have to own our histories – the systemic evils that have been committed.

I have personally experienced narcissim and spiritual abuse in another context, and I understand the manipulation and isolation involved.

I confess, I was struggling with my decision to attend a local church conference I attend every year, this weekend. As in years past, there will be people there who initiated and participated in the behavior that harmed Lost Voice. That’s always been a source of tension for me, yet in my privilege I chose to attend anyway. This year Brian McLaren is one of the speakers, and given this current discussion I can not in good conscience sit and listen. I have always tried to walk that fine line of peacekeeper, but I no longer know which way is up. I would rather spend the time in Examen of my own complicitness and complacency than to keep sweet and take good notes.

All we can do is what is within our control. Speak truth. Listen. And cultivate practices that liberate rather than dominate.

Having read BMcL’s comment a couple more times and thought about it some more, I’d like to retract my previous comment (time stamp 12:49 pm). Brother Maynard is right: making an apology is a pretty low bar to meet, and what we actually see here appears to be so much posturing.

Holly, he’s not even apologizing for one single thing. Not even for trying to have Julie committed. How should he be given the ‘benefit of the doubt’ when he won’t even take responsibility for what he’s done wrong?