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

Thank you Nathan for affirming the crazy campaign. I welcome you and appreciate you speaking up. It IS a mess! I got an email early this morning from a women experiencing and observing similar pain and dysfunction. Ironically, the influences can also be traced back to the Leadership Network Bob Buford days..I think it’s interesting that this culture that has been created of celebrity author speaker conference person bore rotten fruit on both strands…Mars Hill and Emergent. This hostility, shut her up, everything she said is wrong is the same exact treatment I received for years when trying to have a “generative friendship, authentic community, relational generative orthodoxy” from my view they talk it but they in no way walk it. The person who goes back to 1997 with her observations mentioned the other Young Leadership Network shining stars that ended up bearing rotten fruit. Not just Mark Driscall. The toxic culture created is a larger story. Based on books sales, speaking gigs and conferences….I asked for years, “where’s the fruit?”

Hi Nathan,

I apologise if I was one of the people who made it unsafe for people seeking to understand or ask for clarifications. That was not my intention. (And however significant intentions are, I acknowledge that effects are more important). I was happy to make room for disagreement – and I am sorry if that didn’t come across.

My understanding of the situation is different to yours – I felt safe to ask questions, and did a number of times. I also felt safe to offer background research and context (some of which seems irrelevant in hindsight).

As you’ve noted, Julie has been incredibly open throughout this entire process – despite the incredibly personal nature of the conversation. It is to her credit that she created a safe place for discussion.

I agree that there were some really difficult situations confronted in this thread. But I think it would help to distinguish between the questions or clarifications themselves, and how they were expressed. (And, regardless of how the questions were expressed, and the consequent tone of the responses, quite a lot of truth came out in the process.)

This is what I saw: I saw techniques used to manage and control people called out. I saw people deconstructing common attitudes of oppression and suppression. I saw people level the playing field by bringing truth out into the open. I saw equal, fair, and just treatment demanded for everyone: no secrets, no denials, no obfuscations, no pressure. I saw commenters disagree. I saw people apologise.

I believe that any open discussion of complex issues is bound to be messy. I don’t see that as a failure. Instead, I see that we have many different styles of interaction and understanding. We clash. We apologise. We learn to get along.

If you or anyone else wishes to ask questions, I will support you.
As will many others here.

I’ve actually read this whole thread. What a friggin’ mess.

I wasn’t an EV inner circle person, I had the chance to be around some events and some people. I can say that I remember picking up in the ether the “difficult/crazy/mentally ill” vibe from people. And I’m sure, if I remember correctly, that it was a passing intimation in a passing comment from some person 3rd or 4th hand. So that narrative was definitely out there.

I didn’t think much of the divorce and the rumours simply because things were trickling to me 3rd and 4th hand, and it’s really not good practice to dig into hearsay, especially if you don’t have that right kind of relationship with any of the players.

That being said, despite having to wade through the well intentioned mess from other commenters, I find Julie’s openness, posture, and supply of facts quite credible.

In this case, it’s clear that she has been on the receiving end of abusive treatment by a few people.

@Julie, thanks for pressing through. As you know, the claim of “abuse” doesn’t make it so, but your fearless openness with supporting facts and information is compelling.

@DaveHayward, thanks for letting this thread unfold.

@others, some of us genuinely want to seek to understand, and it’s not good enough to expect people to just accept serious charges simply because they’ve been asserted. This thread was filled with a lot of accusations that requests for data, etc. were an attempt to shame or silence Julie. The fact that I am convinced of the truth of Julie’s claims are solely because of her relentless honesty, and her posture of openness. I see no bald face assertions from her or obfuscation, but I see it from those accused.

You really were of zero help to her cause when it came for an observer like me, and in fact you made it harder for me to do the very thing you want all of us to do, which is to be open to hard and uncomfortable truths about people we either know, or used to admire. Seeking to understand, ask for clarifications, etc. clearly wasn’t safe on this thread.

You’re right that abuse needs to be taken seriously and jumped on like a fly on poop.
And some of you are simply just as stubborn, self-absorbed and arrogant and intolerant of disagreement as Tony.

Dear Readers:

Because of the massive attention this blog post and ensuing comments has had, I of course have been thinking a great deal about it. Here are some thoughts:

1. Those normally with the microphone have all kinds of resources available to them, while the silenced have slim options if any. Even though the silenced have enjoyed a safe space to raise their voices here, many insist that a blog is an inappropriate forum for this. My suggest the silenced don’t care about propriety as much as those who officiate.

2. I realize that providing a safe place for victims, the controlled, the silenced and the abused to speak without censor or censure makes me look like I take sides. I can honestly say that I take sides for the truth, free speech, and justice, as well as those who carry these. I not only care about the people on that side, but the people on this side. I was hoping that this conversation would engage all those involved and that through mutual authenticity we would all become accountable and end up amicable. That hasn’t fully happened yet.

3. One way to feel personal control over a conversation is to dominate it. Another way is to walk away from it. Even though it is completely the right of those who have done so, to leave a comment and say you’re never coming back is a way of controlling the situation. It just raises more questions for me.

4. I have been contacted outside of this conversation by many, mostly leaders, who have provided advice to me on how to manage this blog post and comments. I’m sure, for the most part, their intentions were good. But at the same time this indicates how those with authority or a reputation enjoy other ways to control or influence conversations. Maybe this wasn’t always done to silence me or others, but it does tell another story about how influencers assume various methods to manage information that the silenced cannot.

5. The alleged abused invited the accused into this space to respond to their demands for apologies. As unsettling and uncomfortable as this would be, some risked it and graciously met their demands. As far as I know, there has been healing in those relationships. On the other hand, some didn’t. Those who didn’t have their own reasons why, from good to suspicious to bad.

6. I wonder if “ignore it and it will go away” hasn’t come to play in this conversation. That is, for the most part, the conversation has been carried by the alleged abused. For the accused to refuse to enter into the conversation isolates and ghettoizes this conversation. In the minds of some, this diminishes the potential power of what’s really happening because it seems to make the conversation ineffective in bringing about the change it demands. The alleged abused end up whistling in the dark to the sound of crickets blending with just the voices of agreement. Some people would point to this conversation and say, “Just a bunch of whiners. It’ll whither away soon.” I definitely don’t believe this is true, because this conversation has started something significant. I’m not sure what yet, but that will become apparent soon I think.

7. I am convinced that no movement will move ahead well without dealing with the sins of its past. I’ve seen it too many times where an organization hopes an embarrassing stain will fade for the sake of its success. The same with people… they hope their past impropriety will be invisible or overlooked so that they can get on with their lives unchallenged. I think it’s apparent that the emergent movement crashed. Certainly this post and comments has brought even more to light that may have caused the crash. Perhaps a lot of people were hoping that true clarity, contrition and conviction would come, and that the movement, in a healthier state, would lurch forward again.

It’s been an honor to host this conversation that, for the most part, is civil. It’s a testimony to how gracious and bold we can be simultaneously. I trust it isn’t over…perhaps not here, but in the hearts of those who care about this, and in the fruitful conversations of those outside this particular blog.

Your host,

the nakedpastor,
David Hayward

@Linda, while I absolutely agree with your comment, for me there is an even greater and broader purpose in pursuing this conversation in a public place: so that people can become aware of some of the deceptive (whether intentionally or not) and dangerous behaviours and practices that sometimes (often?) take place away from the public eye.

I have a pretty realistic view of what people can be like, especially where money, power and reputation are at stake. Christians are by no means immune to this – in fact, they’re often worse because they find ways to justify their actions in the name of God. In my opinion, however, many, many Christians are unbelievably naive when it comes to human nature and the kinds of power dynamics exposed in this conversation. They simply don’t want to acknowledge that this happens to Christians, and well-known Christian leaders at that. Thus the cycle keeps on repeating itself.

The more people start to wake up and realise that these things happen very, very frequently in churches and ministries of all kinds, the less opportunity there will be for such scenarios to keep on taking shape in the future.

The church – which means you, me and everybody – needs to get its head out of its ass and realise that this is the reality. And it then needs to think seriously about how to prevent these kinds of abuses in the future. For me, this kind of conversation is vital to that process.