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
Tim I have absolutely nothing to hide. It is gut wrenching to know my late father spent over $500,000 having to fight off endless custody battles and endless motions to reduce and eliminate support. Only n NPD could produce such litigious scorched earth.
Brian, if only you felt free to speak!
It’s unfortunate that the fear of lawsuits (a form of the fear of people) is holding you back.
I also wonder whether your association with those named holds you back as well. (And if so, fair enough – friendships are powerful ties.)
But it would be terrible to have to decide between career, income, and reputation; and finding the truth. And even more terrible to be unconscious of the influence of these ties.
Might I suggest that you’re not the best person to initiate a private investigation?
Given your existing involvement in the situation, any committee you convene would inevitably be accused of bias, particularly if it had members among the accused, and/or closely dependent on them.
Here’s a thought: rather than disempower Julie by creating a secret process over which she has little visibility or control, why not ask her what she wants done?
I think she’s made it very clear that she wants an apology from all involved. Perhaps that will come, in time.
May I suggest one further piece of pastoral advice for Tony Jones?
(I’ve not asked Julie about this, by the way – it is simply my impression.)
“Settle with your adversary on your way to court…”, that is, stop with the lawsuits. (These should be publicly verifiable.)
Julie, do you mind if I post links to the summary of events and costs relating to the court cases?
(I was surprised when reading them – they last from 2008 to 2014 – how exhausting for you both!)
Brian, I do not believe that anyone, including Julie, blames you for the failure of the marriage. As has been stated repeatedly, the divorce is not the issue being addressed.
A few questions to consider, since you won’t be saying anything else:
To what do you attribute the “significant discrepancies” between what you understood “actually happened” and the stories shared in this comment thread?
Because you “take accusations of spiritual abuse seriously”, in your review of prior emails, did you not reconsider the attempt by the discernment team to have Julie committed to a mental institution to be potentially abusive?
Realistically, how could a group of people with professional and collegial allegiance to Tony pastorally care for Julie in the midst of this “tragic and volatile situation”?
If Julie did not experience the involvement of this team of spiritual leaders as “sincere and solid pastoral care,” do you believe it is appropriate to simply dismiss her claim that what she experienced was spiritually abusive?
Even though I have been an atheist for several years, I am still somewhat drawn to keeping an eye on the goings-on in the faith was a part of for many years. The stories of manipulation and ass-covering are things which I witnessed myself, far too many times in the churches I was involved with. Kudos to David Hayward for his incisive cartoons and the truth they deliver, and for providing a haven for the wounded. Julie, it has been inspiring to see your courage, and that you are being vindicated here. Even if only a few of those who have caused you harm and treated you unjustly, have stepped up to own some of their complicity, that has to be very meaningful. More power to you, and those around you who care about righting wrongs. It is shocking and disheartening how Christian leaders have conspired to protect Mr. NPD. Oh, and even though I owe a bit of credit to Brian McLaren’s writings for helping me let go of my Christian beliefs, his weasel-worded non-apology turned my stomach. Anyway, to this outsider’s eyes, there is important healing work being accomplished here, for the wounded. I’m glad that David and Julie have refused to be cowed into silence.
I wonder whether Brian McLaren feels he still has enough influence and gravitas to shut down the conversation here. His comment makes little sense to me, otherwise.
If so, it may be past time for a reality check as he’s operating like just another Old Kind of (White Male) Christian.