Join our Newsletter
If you like The NakedJournal, you'll enjoy my weekly newsletter about deconstruction, freedom, and life in general.
Tony Jones on Mark Driscoll: What came first, the thug or the theology?
This drawing is inspired by the Ouroboros Snake... of the snake eating its own tail.
What came first? The chicken or the egg? What came first? The thug or the theology? I read Tony Jones' thoughts on Mark Driscoll.
Jones has always admired Driscoll, maybe envies him a little, wants the best for him, believes he can be redeemed, and suggests that things can be restored.
What I found most interesting though is that Jones believes the problem with Driscoll is theological.
- He titles his post is "Thoughts about Mark Driscoll"
- He talks about the "heady" days of publishing and speaking.
- He dismisses his disturbing personality traits by his use of the word "sure".
- He says it isn't a moral issue (evil) but that he is passionate.
- He says more than once that Driscoll is "extremely smart" or "brilliant".
- He suggests that he will "see" (as in "think"?) his way out of this.
- He writes that Driscoll has just embraced a toxic version of theology.
- He hopes that Driscoll will turn away from this toxic theology.
- He concludes therefore that Driscoll is not the problem, but his theology.
But my question is‚ What came first? The thug or the theology?
That is, did Driscoll become the focus of concern because of his theology? Or was it because of his behavior?
I'm concerned that Jones' post reflects the refusal of the church to understand spiritual abuse. It neglects the pathology of its abusive leaders. I don't think this is being fair to the victims or the perpetrators of spiritual abuse. People are victims of not just a bad theology, but a pathological cruelty.
I don't think Driscoll's theology made this happen. Driscoll "embraced" his toxic version of theology because it aligned with his moral compass. It fit his personality. It worked for him to achieve his goals. Then it manifested the worst in him. Then he continued to develop his toxic theology in order to make more room for his pathological behavior. Mars Hill Church too.
Jones' sentence, "It could have happened to any of us." is true, because I believe we all participate in this dynamic. Theology is our creation. It is a reflection of our drives and desires.
Then, not satisfied to only be the product of our drives and desires, it also becomes the producer of them. Theology is a vicious cycle of our desperate need to understand and control our universe.
Step into this cycle at any point and you can see that we are both the root and fruit of our theology and pathology.
And yes, it spins out of control by manifesting itself in toxic, controlling, and abusive behavior. Nothing can be done about bad theology because of free thought and speech.
But we can do something when this manifests itself in bad behavior. Cruel theology is a nuisance. Cruel behavior is unacceptable.
When Driscoll thinks bully to his people, we can say please stop. But when he actually bullies people, we can step in and say you will stop now!
I don't think this is a theological issue. I think it is a pathological one. Not just for Driscoll and Jones, but for the entire church.
If we would be healed, our theology would take care of itself.
1079 comments
I wonder whether someone like Rachel Held Evans is even aware of this conversation…?
None that I know of, not even a smaller one, but maybe I’m missing something…
I’ve only seen Stephanie Drury posting it on the ‘stuff Christian cultures like’ FB page for discussion and people like Bill Kinnon tweeting about ir. It’s even completely ignored on the ‘Emergent village’ facebook group as far as I can see.
Just curious… is this conversation getting any attention elsewhere on the interwebs? Like, are any well-known bloggers with big, popular platforms commenting on it?
(That last one might have been slightly off-topic, but I thought is was better to post it here than to involve my own blog in this conversation…)
Julie, thank you for popping the ‘emergent’-balloon for me.
Years ago when I discovered the ‘emerging church’ online (and I was quite late on the game) it did help me a lot in my personal faith where I was at the moment. But afterwards, apart from the basic stuff like discorvering I was uncurably postmodern (the first ‘a new kind of Christian’ book reall helped me in that for example, as well as a lot of blogs) but actually it did not bring anything that I hoped for. But then again, there never was any ‘emerging church’ here in Flanders. (I once made an album tongue-in-cheek called ‘I am the Belgian Christian lo-fi scene’, but ‘I am the Belgian emerging church’ would not have that much farther from the truth)
But let’s do a reality check worldwider: Where is the emerging church now worldwide? What did happen to that ‘great emergence’ that had been prophecied? I haven’t seen an inch of it, just as I didn’t see any rapture that was prophecied by the dispensationalist or ‘the great revival’ that people have been promising again and again in charismatic circles. Why is it that I am so used to false prophecies in all corners of my faith (and outside of it) that they just feel normal to me?
Was it all just a bunch of Americans trying to make a living by selling books about things that were very important just because they declared them to be so? What should I even care then? I don’t see much that It seems that the ‘-ing-form’ has since then largely dissapeared (collapsed into ‘missional’?) and that ‘emergent’ has become something that I dpn’t feel any connection with. Neither the ‘straight white males with book deals’ dividing the bounty nor the people who don’t seem to be able to talk about anything without having to trash straight white males can hold my attention for very long I’m afraid.
Very painful to realise that behind the talk of ‘flat structures’ and ‘open source religion’ and whatever there was a lot of power games, and people being thrown under the bus (or sacrificed to idols like success, having a name and mammon, that are as popular in postmodernity as in any other age). All that for a very tiny kingdom of a few local guys that only were king in a very localised own kingdom.
I don’t think Julie here is the only one. And I am quite sure that if we are to follow Jesus, not the big guys on stage but the people like Julie are to be are main concern, above protecting brand names and book deals and whatever. Jesus did not come for those in the spotlight to give them a platform no matter what, but for thoe thrown under the bus, those left behing, those pushed in the corner losing their religion. (Okay, I failed inserting a REM reference here)
If the egos are the main focus, the Holy Spirit dissapears to the background.
Whatever it is that has to emerge to bring in a new step in the history of Christanity, it was not ‘emergent’ in its small secluded corner of the world, no matter how overhyped it got. And I frankly doubt that if there will indeed be a new 500-year rummage sale, that it will come from N-America or W-Europe for that matter. (I do think that ironically the new pope might be closer to it than US-emergent anyway) It will probably not start in English and might not be visible on the internet. And if we want to understand what’ emerging globally we need to be able to look beyond our narrow scope. (I do not doubt that Andrew Jones would be able to report about more movements that are more interesting and furthering the kingdom than emergent-Us than we can count on our 2 hands for exammple…)
There always is the temptation to want to be ‘historymakers’ above all other things, while we are called to love our neigbor in the first place.
(sidenote: I always had the idea that Brian MC, more than just ‘postmodern’, just has a personality who hates confrontations and likes to keep the peace on all sides, something like an Enneagram type 9 -I recognise that, I am like that myself. But that doesn’t mean that the one comment he made here doesn’t deeply disturb me. Sometimes confrontation is needed. And repentence…)