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

In such a lengthy comment thread, there have been multiple issues discussed. However, it seems that the overall direction and purpose of this comment thread is for Julie’s story to be heard and acknowledged by the discernment team.

But why do this on a public blog with such an audience? Because there is an underlying purpose for the greater listening audience to discern the trustworthiness of the public leaders represented here. This audience listens to these leaders in the public sphere, and they expect openness from trusted leaders. A tone of secrecy indicates an attempt to withhold from the public what really happened. Generally a demand for secrecy is a cloak for behaviors that are not above-board.

The remedy for suspicion is to bring things to light, to present the stories of both sides in a place where they can be heard by all. Although this can be painful, in the end, it can bring healing.

To the discernment team, as leaders of a national conversation, surely you understand the importance of listening. Here is an opportunity to understand Julie’s perspective, her story, things she endured of which you were unaware. Do you believe that Julie yet feels that you understand the hurt that she felt?

It is also an opportunity to share the story of your intentions and your role in the discernment meeting. Julie seems willing to consider that the harm she experienced unintended by some members of the team. Perhaps the team must be willing to consider sources of the discrepancies in the story.

I believe that we can agree from Julie’s story that she experienced pain from the actions of a group that she expected to advocate for her. When finally hearing Julie’s painful story after five long years, I would expect to see statements of empathy and regret from the members of the discernment team who claim to have intended sincere pastoral care.

Where are the statements of empathy and regret? Instead each one has adamantly stated that they will not continue this conversation, once again reinforcing the silencing that Julie has experienced over the years.

You say you were trying to help, but that doesn’t erase the fact that Julie was hurt. If she has a story of pain that she experienced in which you were involved, it is disappointing that you have been unwillingly to truly consider and acknowledge the pain of those events or any regret over your involvement.

I have been engrossed in this exchange on this thread and the interaction here.

Here are some reflections:

Julie – Wow, what a journey. I, too, wouldn’t expect too many flat-out apologies for this simple reason: they live in a world where litigation and human (fallen?) power is exercised over the weak and flat-out apologizing places people in a weak position as they make themselves vulnerable. As they have observed, that vulnerability or weakness is often exploited and abused by those in their immediate circle. So, they don’t want that unwanted litigious attention turn towards them, whether by TJ or, even, yourself. So, in light of your stating that they don’t have the personal integrity to respond to your request for an apology, I think there’s at least another explanation and, indeed, one that might help you develop charity towards them (though, from your posts, it sounds like you already have that in good measure): People psychologically think that everyone thinks and acts as they do/might, so they may be projecting; they fear that they will be attacked. And, that indicates that they haven’t experienced love in those deep places of fear, yet; perhaps that an invitation to pray for our enemies and those that have persecuted us….

The push back from some has been good: to see nuances and new information come to light have been helpful to draw out complexity and help us draw away from simplifications. I have appreciated your responses in charity and your push back on issues (inconsistencies?) that clearly remain outstanding. The terrible enactment of group think that you’ve experienced – and, I commend you for realizing that person-specific parts of your accusation many not be accurate, though the broad sweep very well may be – really highlights the need for fearless prophets within leadership circles; where were those checks and balances?

I also think that, given that there is current, on-going litigation the call by some for mediation is at worst disingenuous and at best mis-guided as so much has to happen before I personally would feel comfortable sitting across from those that have hurt you and then make myself vulnerable to them once again. I would need a number of things to happen before I would put myself in such a position, including: a dropping of all litigation action (that a pastor would choose to litigate when Scripture expressly says that that is a ridiculous course of action in 1 Corinthians 6.1-8 raises a red flag for me….), a period of psychiatric counseling for TJ where he accepts that he has a problem and expresses and acts on the desire to move towards help and healing. Unless God spoke or speaks directly to you and told/tells you to go ahead, the precaution voice by some here – to stay away from NPDs completely – holds. I see a long journey before all of those conditions are met in order for a constructive, productive and restorative (my definitions of success) mediation to occur.

And, jumping on the issue that this is a private matter and ignoring the fact that TJ and others are public figures, I still think that Julie has a solid case for going public. Scripture says to dismiss accusations against an elder if it’s just one accusation, but there’s more than one witness here: not only has a commenter on this thread corroborated a toxic pattern, but there’s more than one witness prior to that: Court ordered psychiatric evaluations of both Julie and Tony make for an easy second witness and their reception and understanding would demand appropriate steps for discipline. It’s sad to see that there may have been a head-in-the-sand reaction to this (new) information.

Brambonius – much appreciate your broadening the conversation re: emergent movement, and your hinting that much won’t be recorded or blogged about. There’s far too much attention focused on those that can afford to access a web-enabled computing device. As someone living in Asia and connected to people that advocate for the persecuted Church in this region, much of the church is undergoing revival on many level, both explicitly Spirit-led and implicitly Spirit-led (Human effort). One thing that has contributed to this imbalance is the North American Church’s skewed self-view that they are a major part of Christianity when, in fact, the NA Church is a large branch at best (perhaps even only a twig?) on the great tree of Christianity. That much is obvious here in Asia. Not only has emergence been skewed narrowly (initially to white males, but now broadening to be a bit more inclusive on some level within NA and also worldwide around the globe (Cana, etc…)), but also emergence needs to take heed about potential abuses of those in power as it expands (there is fertile ground for abuse, even here in HK, where many congregations quasi-worship their head pastor.) which could undermine and slander the good work that God is doing in Asia.

Mike Morrel – I have much appreciated Mike from afar, and even hope to attend a Wild Goose. That said, however, I find his argument against guilt by association to not be 100% compelling (though not 0% either) for the very reason that part of the argument for group think lies in the fact that deep relationships (and their adherent commercial opportunities) lead to a conflict of interest. Some discipline of self-recusal for reflection might have helped here. As new information has come to light, this conflict of interest has become less, but has not been completely answer satisfactorily. Sadly, esp in MHC’s case, the wrong persons were recused…(and, arguably, the tools of defamation and ad hominem were also used in Julie’s particular case). I appreciate that Julie has acknowledged some of that, but think that – as someone that stands outside the inner circle – your argument may hold much for you than for those in the inner circle.

While I sincerely wish I could claim to be surprised by Danielle Shroyer’s reply, I am not. If this response is an example of her idea of good pastoral care then anyone in her church would well-advised to begin work on an immediate exit strategy. Unfortunately, her reply is little more than a show of concern for herself and her friends, and the fact that we are once again faced with an accused person in a ministry position who spews indigation without the slightest attempt to engage by offering counterpoints or supported statements lends still more credibility to Julie’s account.

It’s telling, to me at least, that Shroyer can’t even be bothered to attempt to address specifics. The classic “I know something you don’t know” posture is little more than a cop out, and I am becoming increasingly tired of hearing those who have supposedly answered a call to be shepherds to the flock proclaim their good intentions. Good intentions mean little when the outcome of one’s actions are harmful. Why, I really must ask, can you not find it within yourself to express even the slightest concern for what may have been your part in a serious breach of pastoral ethics, Pastor Shroyer? One would assume that, had you been behaving with the best of intentions and with the utmost care at your disposal, such outrage as you have expressed here would be best directed at those who deceived you. But you’ve come here with the intention of nothing more than shutting down a woman who has long been silenced. As a pastor, as a minister of any variety, you do not have the luxury of doing such a thing. Your position does not afford it to you, and if you can’t see that for the truth it is then you have no business offering guidance or counsel to anyone. What you’ve done here is an abject failure to live up to the responsibilities you have accepted willingly.

Truly, Pastor Shroyer, if you are innocent in all this then I can’t encourage you too stongly to investigate the facts of this incident. You may believe you already know them, but if you do in fact know the full facts then you do everyone a disservice by your reply here. If Julie’s story has even a portion of the truth, we are left with only two conclusions regarding you. Either you were a dupe and your outrage is misdirected, or you were a full participant in a grave offense against Julie, against your position, and against your Savior. I can only hope it’s the latter, but you owe a much greater accounting than you have offered here. If you have will not, or cannot, offer it in this space then at the very least you owe Julie some answers. She may owe you a few of her own. Perhaps the two of you, assuming your innocence is genuine, can suss out a clearer perspective on these matters and see some wrongs righted. As it stands, you’ve done no better (and in some ways far worse) than your colleagues who have appeared on this thread previously.

I don’t deserve a reply, but Julie absolutely does. Live up to your creed, Pastor Shroyer. Demonstrate some humility and answer the claims Julie has made.

And Danielle Shroyer:

Giving voice to the poor, the widow, the orphan, the oppressed; the victims, the bullied, the silenced;
Hearing testimony about truth from many sides;
Clearing up 5-year-old miscommunications and misconceptions; and
Making peace…

These ARE good in the world. Your own saviour says so.
(And he wasn’t adverse to causing a mess or commotion while doing so; nor offending those in power.)

Lainie,

I’ve also seen pastors way out if their depth when attempting to counsel addiction, depression, anxiety, … But the expectation that they’ll know everything (from their congregations) becomes internalised. There’s little criticism of their abilities, or suggestion to pass things on to those better qualified – even when they acknowledge not being qualified!

The result: shattered, disappointed people; and a pastor psychologically pressured to shift the blame.