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

Years ago I discovered Doug Pagitt’s blog and was interested to see what the “Emergent” thing was all about and if he was still the “same person” that I had met once and knew in an acquaintance sort of way because I was friends with, and then dating, one of his best friends. When I read Doug’s blog, I had a couple of questions about things he had stated in an authoritative tone and “dared” to ask them in the comments section. Within an hour I was lambasted for my questioning and was told that I was attempting to “be cute” and was stirring up unnecessary controversy in a format not appropriate for that sort of thing. Soon after, a list of “comment rules” was added to Doug’s blog. I don’t really remember if or how Doug and I continued to “converse” in the blog comments (because I have, thank God, learned to mostly let go of shit). I may have just done what I still believe Doug wanted me to do—which was to shut up. When I revisited the blog later, I believe that my comments were removed by the blog administrator, i.e., the Duke. I wasn’t surprised by what seemed to be whitewashing … having grown up within the church, I am highly familiar with that behavior (and am slightly ashamed to admit I have engaged in quite a bit of it myself.)

But I do still have a copy of the email which Doug sent me that said “See how nice it is when people follow the rules ;-)”

I also have a copy of the email I sent to him which, as I expected, never received a response. Here’s what that said:

Really…you don’t seem to have changed a lot since college.
What intrigues me is that you were so positive you had all the
right answers then (traditional Baptist theology) and anyone
who questioned them was wrong.

But now, I think from reading your posts and listening to some of
your podcasts, that you have turned away from those formulaic
answers to embrace new types of answers. And now you are
convinced that these ways of viewing God and his Word are right.
Maybe you are not convinced…but it comes across as certainty
and even arrogance sometimes.

I don’t think we all ever have all the right answers. Life is a process
toward truth for all of us. I don’t think any denomination or church
or movement has a corner on the market of truth. Which is why it
so important that we remain open to one another’s questions.
My questions to you in your blog were sincere…perhaps misplaced
(in your mind) but sincere. I wasn’t attempting to skewer you. I wasn’t
attempting to be mean or “cute.”

I wanted to know if you could step outside your own theology for a moment
and consider what it looks like to those of us outside of it. I’ve found that
when I do that, my own position is often strengthened and solidified. But
once in awhile it is abandoned in light of the truth that others bring to the
table. I’m sorry if my questions came across as nasty, flippant, or threatening.

You have an uncanny knack for using your keen intellect and quick
wit to quickly address divergent points of view. But I wonder if that
haste serves you well in the long run. If Emergent really is all about
conversation, don’t you have to be willing to converse with people?
Even if they are not as educated, not as sophisticated, and
not as sarcastically, crowd-pleasingly, funny as you are?

I am not a published author, a well-known speaker, and a world
traveler; but I am a minister to the world, too. And I care about how
we, as Christ’s family, come across to those who are considering
applying for adoption into it. I also care about how we nurture and
challenge one another so that the church itself is maturing and
growing toward unity.

I want to be part of a family that always tells the truth, but always
exemplifies love. I believe that you have that same desire, but perhaps
I am mistaken. It IS nice when we all follow the rules, isn’t it? And so
rare…"

It really does make me sad that leaders of organizations which are conceived, birthed and nurtured through the process of questioning, so often come to perceive that same process as a threat and, even worse, wage war against it as an enemy instead of seeing it as an opportunity to be transformed.

I feel for Julie and for the countless numbers of sincere, holy, delicious individuals who have been dished up, chewed up, and spit out by church leaders on a quest to have more. Unfortunately, the gorging and purging won’t stop until there is nothing left to devour at the buffet.

“I am all for the truth being exposed and people sharing their views…”

Provided, it would seem, such things are done in a very particular way. Even after reading your lengthy comment, Doug, I’m having a difficult time understanding how what you’re up to here amounts to more than basic concern trolling.

“My point is, and it seems obvious in even my small interaction here, that this format, when void of interpersonal interaction and with all communication being done in public, is not the best way to convey our meaning.”

I’m not really having any trouble following the meaning of anyone in this thread. Perhaps I’m simply exceptional in my reading comprehension (doubtful), but it’s all reasonably plain to me. Let me see if I can break it down for you a bit, and you can tell me if it’s helpful at all.

Tony Jones wrote a blog post which David took to indicate a certain degree of admiration for Mark Driscoll, which David took great care to qualify. Tony didn’t care for the suggestion that he admires Driscoll even in the qualified terms which David described. As a result, Tony jumped into the comments here to express his dissatisfaction, and, as is his wont, he proceeded to fail to offer any of the generosity you so highly recommend while becoming increasingly petulant—as is also his wont.

When others began to take Tony to task for this all-too-familiar behavior on his part, Tony became increasingly defensive and condescending, and so others began to join in the discussion to wonder at Tony’s rapid return to his old form after what was meant to be something of a restorative sabbatical from the internet. It was at this point that Julie entered the mix to suggest that the blog Tony posted regarding the causes of Driscoll’s seemingly sudden tumble from the status of Golden Boy contained no small measure of the pot calling the kettle black, and in the course of her comment pointed out that when Tony abandoned her and their children it was none other than Driscoll who stepped in to help. It’s really saying something when one loses a basic decency contest to Driscoll.

Then you, close friend and associate of Tony Jones, make an appearance on a thread which features some rather disturbing revelations about Tony’s private behavior (which served as fairly compelling evidence in support of Julie’s accusation of hypocrisy) to encourage us all to reconsider using blogs and blog comments to discuss such important issues since there’s such great potential for misunderstanding. While you’re correct, broadly speaking, to point out how notorious online communication is for misunderstanding, it’s difficult to see your sudden entry here as anything other than a thinly veiled attempt to help your good friend save face due to the extremely unflattering picture being offered by Julie of Tony’s truly heinous personal conduct, as well as the rather blatant enabling on offer from Tony’s cadre of defenders. (“Spiritual wife”? Seriously? People still try to pull that one off? Sweet baby Jesus.)

When you were challenged on this frankly stunning, obvious maneuver, you decided to throw a wall of expertly worded blather about how it’s important to be generous to one another and to attempt to establish relationship with those with whom we differ. While I agree with the principle of generosity in interpretation, I hold the principles of accuracy and integrity to be of a much higher order. As for the standard of interpersonal relationship you suggest, I would offer in reply the idea that if one is incapable of making one’s meaning reasonably plain without taking the steps you recommend then perhaps one should either spend a good deal more time reflecting prior to committing one’s words to print or, failing that, consider a full withdrawal from the grind of blogging. It’s not for everyone, and there’s no justification for placing the onus for clarity on one’s audience. To be blunt, “I know what you think from your writing and now I will say what I think,” is an entirely reasonable standard. The fact that you insist on others not taking your own words at face value says a great deal about your preferred modus operandi—none of it favorable.

Doug- seriously. Everyone stop talking on the internet and have private convos okay?! Are you kidding? Tony is a public figure whose behavior has public effects. If he doesn’t like it he can grow up or stop being public. I’m surprised that I’m still surprised at the variety of ways people tell those who’ve suffered to shut their cake holes. You people are disgusting.

Could someone explain what a spiritual wife is? Is it just my womanly nature, prone to hysteria and easily deceived (like Eve, dontcha know), that assumed the vows made in front of the preacher and calling on God suggested a spiritual component to the relationship?

In truly delighted that men of god such as Tony have other menz of god to pressure, coerce, and threaten all their detractors into terrified silence so that the work of the gospel may never cease. God be praised.

Sure, my individual gorge rises at the thought of someone trying to institutionalize me over a custody dispute. But obviously I will learn to quell such touches of the vapors now that I understand it’s for Jesus.

Also, I wouldn’t want my womanly hysteria to hurt Doug’s or Tony’s feelings.

I guess the question will be whether Doug has the cojones to respond to Julie in a manner befitting a church pastor. Or whether he will just slink away. I’m hoping for the former… but expecting the latter.

And now back to the madness of renovations.