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

This is a really long “thought chunk,” but I hope it’s helpful for processing what seems to be happening on this thread, and why.

SOME POINTS OF BACKGROUND/DISCLOSURE: I have been a student of political sociology, dynamics of dissent and social change, and organizational development since the mid-1970s. Since January of 2009, I have been writing a book for non-profits about dealing with leadership and organizational systems where abuse of power is involved. I had already been tracking many potentially relevant situations in the larger evangelical community for a long time prior to that, including goings on around Emergent Village and many other “streams” that came out of the “emerging ministry movement” of the mid-1990s to early 2000s.

On June 8, 2014, I published a blog post entitled, “Thoughts on Redemption in the Wake of Abuse: Agents of Damage versus Agents of Healing.”

http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2014/06/08/thoughts-on-redemption-in-the-wake-of-abuse-agents-of-damage-versus-agents-of-healing/

(The comment below will make more sense if you read the Agents of Damage/Healing post.) There is a section in that post where I introduced an original framework I developed over the past five years on “10 Pairs of Roles in Systems of Damage versus Healing.” This is the same set of 10 roles that I’ve been using to talk about a “Pyramid of Responsibility” and what level of direct culpability or indirect complicity people have in toxic systems.

What follows here is an until-now-unpublished companion piece on “Commenders” that I produced around that same time as I published the Agents of Damage/Healing piece (June 2014). I present it here (and will post it on my own blog shortly) without any editorial changes except that I have removed the Fotolia images that I planned to use. (I note that in part because I used the term “theological thugs.”) I didn’t write about Commenders with this current situation in mind, but because I have generally been seeing an increased level of push-back against them from the spiritual abuse survivor community over the past five years. I suspect we will see much more to come …

Anyway, maybe this material will help readers in expanding their context (or at least in understanding my opinion) on why the calling out of those who may be considered Commenders could help bring light and resolution to questions about Emergent Village system toxicity. Many of these questions were raised in blogs at least in December 2009 through early 2010. Understandably, the series of comments here has brought out a lot of heat along with light. However, for what it’s worth, please consider that because of these questions/comments being deleted, deflected, or otherwise unanswered in 2009-2010, the heat now perhaps could’ve been prevented by open responses then. But instead, apparently both behind-the-scenes and on-the-blogs attempts to resolve issues were blocked. So now, it is what it is.

Okay, and now, here this is. Commenders …

Commenders Who Prop Up and Perpetuate an Authoritarian System:

Focusing in on “Commenders” and “Defenders”

Within the Perpetrator/Perpetuator system is a super group – COMMENDERS. (They are the counterfeit opposite of DEFENDERS in the Survivor/Supporter system.) Commender members in this special category invest their own resources and reputation to promote the Dictators and to demote, defuse, deter any who would challenge the presumed rights and reputation of their Dictator colleagues.

Many Commenders have positions in their own agencies or businesses that are part of an interlocking directory (i.e., professional network) with that of the Dictators. So, they are able to offer opportunities (like speaking engagements, publishing contracts, event participation) with positive payoffs in terms of exposure, publicity, and finances. This means that, in defending the Dictators, they are also banking their own influence as loyalists to elevate the entire network of individual and organizations in this negative support system, and not just the Dictators.

They also shield Dictators from scrutiny, negative publicity, and any other form of challenge. They use every other tactic in the Perpetrator-Perpetuator system to reinforce what the Dictators deem as “right” and extinguish all other thoughts, speech, actions, and identities as “wrong.” They also enable a “false positive” profile of the Dictators’ system by lauding and applauding them/it publicly and avoiding the identification or acknowledgement of anything wrong.

However, they are not pawns in this. Commenders should know better because of their own position of responsibility and authority. But for whatever combination of personal and/or professional reasons, they continue to promote and protect those who perpetrate evil. They twist the truth and act like “theological thugs.”

So, when the truth about the Dictators comes out, shouldn’t their Commenders deserve the same fate as their Dictator friends? After all, they helped perpetuate the Dictators’ reigns. But as the prophet Isaiah states in the Bible:

Doom to those who call evil good and good evil,
who present darkness as light and light as darkness,
who make bitterness sweet and sweetness bitter.
(Isaiah 5:20, Common English Bible)

The Bible also states:

The sins of some are obvious, reaching the place of judgment ahead of them; the sins of others trail behind them. In the same way, good deeds are obvious, and even those that are not obvious cannot remain hidden forever. (1 Timothy 5:24-25, New International Version)

The Dutch philosopher-theologian Erasmus said, “He who allows oppression shares the crime.” So – if/when the Dictators’ deeds become evident that they have engaged in evil and inflicted harm on others – what constitutes appropriate consequences for their special Commenders? What options should be considered, based on the types and degrees of support they gave, and the level of damage that resulted among the victims of their Dictator friends/colleagues?

• Public exposure documenting their participation in corruption, and calls for censure?
• Disqualification from public leadership and removal from their position?
• Calls for a transparent, public process of accountability through apologizing and restitution?
• Dissolution and dissembling of their organization?

Whether these Commenders have supported their Dictator friends through their own blind spots or through blind loyalty, they have given us ample reason to question their critical thinking, discernment, and decision-making skills. They have not proven themselves trustworthy. [“DEFENDERS” SECTION TO BE ADDED]

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.