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

Personal Attack on John Musick #1: “It’s great that people have a place to come and commensurate (sic) about their experiences.”

Except, it would seem, said greatness depends on whether or not the commiserations (which, one would assume, is the word you meant to use when you typed “commensurate”) take place in the manner and location you deem fit. Your subsequent statements would indicate as much.

Personal Attack on John Musick #2: “However, regardless of how you personally feel about Tony, the blood lust and voyeuristic glee that is being demonstrated here in response to Julie’s unaccountable torrent is deeply troubling.”

Seeing as how Julie has not only maintained the claim throughout this comment thread that she possesses documentation which she has offered to all for their personal perusal, it’s difficult to see how one could reasonably represent her statements here as unaccountable. Offering evidence is actually the opposite of unaccountability. Julie has, in fact, invited you to hold her accountable, and you’re doing nothing less than dismissing her entirely.

Personal Attack on John Musick #3: “It’s clear from her tone and the frequency of her posting that she is hurting and has yet to reconcile the events of her life. And this is fine. Some of us may never find closure and healing is a process, not a destination.”

How is this statement any different from those who “discerned” Julie’s supposed mental illness from a distance? Are you a therapist, John? More importantly, are you Julie’s therapist? Her Father Confessor, perhaps? How exactly does one who represents himself to be supremely dedicated to accountability, such as yourself, manage to make these sorts of pronouncements without providing supporting evidence?

Additionally, you’re participating in a repeat of the process by which Julie’s mental health was first misrepresented, and she slandered, as a result. You claim she is still hurting and has failed to reconcile the events she describes, but she has made the direct statement that she is actually doing quite well. She appears to me to be taking responsible and reasonable steps to manage her interactions with a notoriously difficult ex-husband. Perhaps you’d be willing to provide some support for you claim that this is not, in fact, the case.

Finally, at least regarding this personal attack, what you represent as blood lust and voyeuristic glee strikes me as something more akin to a mass catharsis regarding not just Tony Jones, but also several other leading figures in the Emergent movement. By all accounts—except, of course, the accounts of the leading figures themselves, and their devotees—such a catharsis and calling to account has been a long time coming. Feel free to disagree, but you’ll need to support your disagreement with more than your word.

Personal Attack on John Musick #4: “Does it serve her, this community or the subjects of her claims to promote such an outworking of animus in such a public forum?”

For all but the latter group, yes. As for the latter group, it would be hard to imagine a venue or forum in which any of them would consider any such outworking of animus to be a desirable thing. Unless you want to come straight out and call Julie a liar (as opposed to simply implying same), she has already attempted to deal with these matters directly without success. In fact, it would appear that the more she attempted to see these matters addressed privately, the more she was slandered publicly. That’s a real problem. Wouldn’t you agree, John? Furthermore, the painfully loud echo of Driscoll’s criticism of those who went outside the system he set up to ensure no one could ever challenge him is abundantly clear to all present. Except, perhaps, for those issuing that call.

Personal Attack on John Musick #5: “Because it’s obvious that one must be very clear of their intentions when disagreeing on here; I’m not trying to shut anyone down. But come on, really? The one-sided angry ex-wife diatribe? This is healthy? Are we so cynical and angry that we’re salivating at the alleged details of a religious leader’s divorce? Are we so driven by our revulsion toward that which caused us so much pain that we’re willing to accept and applaud such emotional venting without even offering the most elemental grace to the accused?”

As tends to be the case, you claim not to be attempting to shut down anyone, but then you proceed to tell us why we need to shut this thing down. One is left wondering what else to call such a maneuver if not attempting to shut down the discussion. Perhaps you can offer a suitable term?

It’s also notable that the people who continually pull this discussion back to the topic of the divorce itself are the same people who support Tony Jones. Julie has said a number of times that this is not about the divorce. This is, in point of fact, about holding people who directly and personally wronged her to public account—because, as previously mentioned, they have refused to address matters in private. Several others in this thread have also done their best to demonstrate how this about something other than the divorce. You can dismiss those claims if you choose, but you’ll need to justify why you’ve chosen to do so. You cannot simply wave them away and expect to be taken as anything more than an apologist for the misconduct Julie has been calling out here among the leadership of the Emergent Movement.

As for extending elemental grace (personally, I’m uncertain what “elemental grace” actually is, but I suspect it’s something like fundamental grace), one is forced to wonder why you insist on grace for Tony Jones yet extend none to Julie. Yes, I’m well aware that you’ve made noises to that effect, but the condescension and gaslighting you’re engaging in just now give the lie to your expressions of concern for Julie. How often have you chided Tony Jones for failing to extend grace to others with whom he profoundly disagrees or finds himself in conflict with? Your call for grace in this instance bears a striking resemblance to Doug Pagitt’s call for generosity, and both smack of disingenuous concern for the greater good meant to disguise your attempts to cover your friend’s ass.

Personal Attack on John Musick #6: “It’s obvious that Julie needs people to talk to. But it’s also obvious that she desires to rally people against Tony and attempt to damage his reputation as much as she can. It is also apparent that the desire for titillation has overridden any actual desire to see Julie come to grips with where her life is.”

Yet more gaslighting. Also, no small measure of what I can only assume is intentional misreading, and most definitely misrepresentation, of Julie, her openly stated intentions, and the current state of her personal life. While what Julie has been sharing is very likely to be damaging to Tony’s reputation, it’s also clear that she’s offering evidence in support of the claims she’s making. That being the case, and provided her evidence bears scrutiny, then any damage to Tony’s reputation has been wholly self-inflicted. At this point, it would seem most likely that Tony is the greatest danger to his reputation.

Personal Attack on John Musick #7: “It seems to me that you have a great opportunity to help some people here. But this level of mudslinging will help no one.”

One person’s mudslinging is another’s truth-telling. Evidence will determine which characterization is accurate. Which brings us to…

Personal Attack on John Musick #8: “As much as we may hate to admit it, there are two sides to every story. And as a personal witness, both are not being represented here.”

As a personal witness, you possess the ability to correct any misrepresentations you believe to be taking place in this thread. Simply proclaiming yourself to be in possession of exculpatory information regarding Tony Jones means nothing. You’ve already taken it upon yourself to speak in Tony’s defense, albeit with a large dose of condescension toward Julie, but half-measures will not do in cases such as these.

I strongly suspect you’re here, along with Jon Sweeney, as a result of either direct or indirect appeals from Tony Jones. That being the case, I would encourage you either to carry through with your defense by providing verifiable evidence of your claims which would serve to disprove Julie’s evidence or to stop carrying water for a man who’s unworthy of the effort.

End onslaught of personal attacks.

Gahh. “It’s great that people have a place to come and commensurate about their experiences.” Not exactly a promising opening to what I’m guessing you think is a generous and thoughtful post.

(The word you’re after is “commiserate.”) It’s the wrong word, even if you’d gotten it right! Commiserating would reduce this conversation to the level of a bitch-fest . . . and that would be a pretty strange reading of what’s actually going on.

Someone was the victim of a smear campaign. Some of the smear-ers weren’t even aware that they were spreading vicious, harmful lies. The smear-ee has, until now, had no public venue in which to confront them. She’s chosen to use this one. Some of them are re-thinking their behavior with respect to her. Why does it have to be a public venue? Because her private communications with them were met with dismissal or worse.

I find it refreshing to witness the grace and ease with which she forgives those who see that they were part of perpetrating an injustice. If that looks like glee, okay with me.

The thing that Jon and John are just hating, seething and raging against is that they cannot control this. Unlike in the cultic churches, where people who step out of line with the leader’s vision and dare to tell the truth are destroyed—or "thrown under the bus in driscollspeak—here, they are impotent, they try to shame, impugn, backhandedly discredit, all while appearing above it all, and yet, they are paper dragons. They have no power whatsoever.

Jesus told the truth and spoke of things whispered in inner rooms being shouted from rooftops (truly the social media of His day). What do you say of someone who hates the truth? Are they Christ-like?

Having endured my share of non-apology and half-apology apologies, in my honest opinion, Mike Morrell has enough qualifications, passive aggressive cattiness, self-pity, and rock-throwing in his apology to terminally taint it.

I’m glad you got something of an apology, Julie, it’s better than nothing (and frankly you’re owed one heck of a lot more than an apology) but it is clear to me that the guy simply DOES NOT GET IT even at this point and while previously there was this thought eating away at the edges of my consciousness that you might actually be to blame here (and I was being duped by a lunatic yet again), I can now say with mathematical certitude that you are completely in the right and truly were the one being abused by severely disturbed and toxic people.

So thank you, Mike, for tipping your hand a bit, even in an apology, and showing me that Julie truly is the innocent one here. So there’s some good even in that.

Years ago, I had a large, sweet, oaf of a dog, who was terrorized by the neighbor’s cat. The cat would dart out of a hole in the plank fence and swat my dog across the face, and then stand there, dominant, while my dog cowered.

This went on for some time, whenever I would walk my dog past that house at night.

Until the fateful night. We didn’t know it, but earlier that week the neighbors had taken the cat to be declawed. The cat darted out and swatted my dog on the face…but nothing happened. In the space of less than a second, the cat looked at his paw, looked at my dog, and looked over at me. I swear, SWEAR, I heard the cat say “OH SHIT” before it tore off for the hole in the fence with my dog on his heels, unafraid. From then on, the cat hastened straightaway for the fence when he saw my dog sauntering along.

So many years later, that encounter brings me joy, as does this whole exchange.