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
Is anyone else triggered by watching the women repeatedly have to stand up to the men, only to be ignored or condescended to?
@Mike – I don’t have the time or inclination to unpack all the dung left behind by the white elephants you’re ignoring … a few points will suffice …
In an email exchange earlier this year, when I asked you once again for an apology (you said you did nothing that required an apology), I brought up the Tony/Courtney affair. You denied that the affair actually began before they got married.The evidence indicates otherwise. Sounds like discrediting Julie to me.
We never had any paid professional ties – back in 2007 when we were still buddies, you offered your comments re about 1/2 of the New Atheist Crusader book and I did likewise with a book you were writing. In fact, I recall when I was writing for the Ooze expressing concern that the Ooze blogger book campaign you managed was being handled in violation of recently established FTC regulations requiring bloggers to reveal if they have been paid to promote a product. I recall stating that we needed to follow their regulations in order for me to feel comfortable contributing – your response was to dismiss me as crazy when in fact, I was trying to keep the Ooze from getting the boot by the FTC. The Ooze shut down shortly thereafter as Spencer moved on to other things, so this became a moot point. In a nutshell, if one runs a book campaign that’s being paid for by an outside entity (usually the publisher or author), one cannot then post comments about said book in social media forums without disclosing this professional connection. I was not the only one who brought this issue to you BTW.
There was a helluva lot more than one email exchange that I caught wind of here – this included taking private emails where you and I were discussing what I was led to believe was s confidential conversation regarding how to help a mutual friend only for me to learn that you forwarded portions of my email out of context to that person without including your own comments. I cannot begin to describe the hell that caused on my end as I was seen as the sole vilian when in fact others had similar concerns. For the record, this was the ONLY exchange I had with you where I said things via email that I did not want communicated elsewhere (all our other exchanges were comments I either made to the person or tried to rech them to chat.) But again, in this one instance, I thought I was chatting with a trusted colleague. My mistake and one I paid for dearly.
Simply speaking at any event does not make one in cahoots with the organizers. Coming to the immediate defense of the gatekeepers who control who gets to speak is suspect at best. And I would encourage those who agree to speak at fugture US emergent events to weigh carefully if they really want to continue to line the pockets of those who engage in on and offline cyberbullying. As one watches this debate unfold, the ones who defend the US Emergent tradition of gaslighting and other on and offline bullying tactics are those who have a financial stake in the Emergent brand. That speaks volumes.
As far as the rest of the elephants, I’m leaving that dung to die. Apology accepted but like Julie, I don’t trust you one whit. And as I am on deadline for some projects, I don’t have the inclination or time right now to resolve this offline nor do I trust you to handle with integrity anything that I’ve pen to you offline. Lessons learned.
With permission from Kate:
Kate Willette
ebook is a very good idea, David. Your own comments, by the way, are what make the unfolding possible. It’s like watching a group of people work together to unpack a stuffed closet: some want to put the damaged items right back in their boxes, some want to wave them like bloody shirts, some want to pause and see what they’re actually looking at. And you calmly want everyone to understand that the unpacking is necessary, no matter how queasy it makes us, and that getting it done is the only way to be okay. Well done.
I will take my concerns Mike offline.
’Nother thing(s):
Abusing someone isn’t a “mistake.” Abetting abusers isn’t either.
TJ has had the benefit of the doubt for YEARS and from a lot of people on this thread who never apparently had that lofty aim when Julie was being gaslighted, they just bought the BSC stuff hook, line and sinker.