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
Coupla things:
JoPa – isn’t that what they called the disgraced Penn State football coach that provided safe haven for a child molester? I so love tone-deafness.
Is there a asterisk on emergent marriage vows “In sickness and in health” that states “mental illness isn’t sickness so I don’t have to keep my vows.”? I’m not stipulating that Julie is mentally ill, but if she had been, wasn’t the NPD thing supposed to stay by her and help her through her supposed sickness?
Is there another opt out clause that says “From this day forward – unless I find someone who gives me a spiritual boner…”?
It honestly disturbs me that McLaren is issuing a THREAT.
How did Jesus treat His associates? With love, of course, which included calling one his closest ones “Satan” when appropriate.
How did He treat the power brokers of the day? With love, of course, which included taking up whips and chasing them from from temples courts, calling them snakes and sons of snakes, whitewashed tombs, sons of hell, etc.
How did He treat the abused? With love, of course, which, interestingly, never seemed to include anything but compassion and always seemed to include standing up to the power brokers in the face of stern opposition and great personal risk.
How did Jesus treat Himself and His own interests? It would seem with utter indifference; e.g., He went into Jerusalem to face certain death; even though he had the ability to summon up a megachurch-sized crowd in a moment that Brian McLaren could only dream of, He would drive them away just as quickly. In fact, it seemed that the only time He served His own interests was in the service of others, namely those on the bottom.
How does Brian McLaren do things? See a difference?
Brian McLaren. I am sad. Sad you are not the man of God I had believed you to be. You have been sent irrefutable evidence and heard here my truthful and accurate account of varying abuses by the two people you will speak for at their Christisnity 21 event in Phoenix, AZ. The abuses and smear campaign have been verified on this very thread and by witnesses. You disappoint me greatly. I am saddened to know that after all these years, your response to scandal is the same. Self preservation. I am sickened and sad.
@Linda,
Excellent questions. Love the observation about having someone committed not being potentially abusive. It’s weird how leaders don’t seem to get it that having people who feel abused come and submit themselves to their counsel (in council?) again and again only exacerbates the feelings of — if not the actual — abuse itself.
Seems clear to me now that one’s orthodoxy can be far more generous than one’s orthopraxy.