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
@Mike – I can’t figure out what you mean given your ongoing Oz like intepretation of events. For example, you make it sound like there’s this huge cacophony of people I’m attacking gladiator style – not true in the last. I am targeting a very specific and small gorup of author/speakers who have attached themselves to the US emergent brand in ways that are toxic and not theological. This thread came about as the result of this group’s dynamics which I think have been well illusrated as being godawful.
You really don’t get it. You just don’t. But it’s OK, I will just pick myself up from the bus you keep throwing a few of us under and move on.@ Brad – I think you’re right on in naming the material documentation that has been cited as at-hand. If a clergy abuse organization handled mediation, these would be Exhibits A – Z to attempt to establish what has occurred.
And you realize, I hope, that not all parties are feeling able to offer apologies. In my case, it was fairly cut and dry – I called Julie something unkind, and that was unwarranted. But if she’s wanting mea culpas from people who feel they have access to different (and contradictory) facts than the ones offered as at-hand, well…that’s where it gets tricky. And that’s why some kind of mediation is in order, I think – this won’t be settled by who speaks the loudest on this blog thread. There is a fine line between the wisdom of crowds and a lynch mob – for both parties.
Oops! Correction to my last comment, about halfway down: “regularly agency issues” should have been “regulatory agency issues.”
That means like the IRS at the federal level, or an attorney general at the state level. Whatever agencies oversee non-profits, or other kinds of corporations and companies, and can respond to complaints when non-profits especially are allegedly not functioning within the public interest, or there are other issues with governance, conflicts of interest, inurement (use of a tax-exempt non-profit for the private benefit or excessive benefit of someone with insider relationships), misuse of funds that were solicited to be spent on a specific designation project, etc.
Hi Becky – I never said you were ostracized by anyone. I said “burned bridges.” And libel? Out of all the comments on this thread, I’m the one committing libel? Goodness me.
And, I don’t think so. You and I are both what is considered in Mass Comm Law “limited public figures.” It takes a lot more than assertions one way or another to libel the likes of us. In addition to proving my statement wrong, http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence actual malice would need to be proven…and I mean you no malice.
In fact, I mean my apology. I mean what I said about regretting how things went down between us. And I mean what I said about you being insightful and prophetic.
I only wish you wouldn’t utterly malign and call “bullies” all the women and men whom, like me, have had strained relations with you over the years. We don’t have horns coming out of our heads. And neither do you.
Selah.
I’ll say this. Does anyone do passive aggression like Brian McLaren? He’s like a character in a Noah Baumbach movie (albeit one written by whoever was responsible for Patch Adams). I slow clapped that.