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
@Kimberly,
Great post that you linked… important perspective that I wish more EV leaders would take up. Thanks for sharing it.
Nobody is saying that everything that happened in the wider EV / ECM was all bad… but it’s important to own up to the mistakes. Especially the really grievous ones, rather than keep adding coverup to the list of faults.
Danica, I think Jesus said something along the lines of “fertilise it and give it a chance next year, then cut it down”.
But that was for an unproductive tree, not a thorn bush.
While I wouldn’t want to judge on the basis of one incident, Jesus clearly implies a time limit for waiting for fruit to change before taking radical action.
I also wonder if there is a “How many thorns does it take?”-style question that’s appropriate. But I wouldn’t want to be seen to excuse bad behaviour.
Someone said somewhere that you will know a tree by its fruit. A thorn bush can protest all day long that it is an apple tree, and write amazing books about how it is an apple tree, and have others confirm that it is really a nice apple tree once you get to know it, and speak at conferences about producing apples on your branches … but if it, once tested, produces thorns … where do you go from there?
I know a couple people who know Brian personally, and they all say he’s one of the nicest, most thoughtful people they’ve ever met. His writings have had a huge influence on my faith, and I wouldn’t be where I am today if I hadn’t read a Generous Orthodoxy.
Unfortunately, none of that lines up with what has been said about Brian in this thread, and what has been revealed about his character through his bullshit apology.
How hard is it to apologize for something you did? I mean, really? Be an adult. Be a decent human being. Jesus christ.
I guess that would require a type of honesty and self-reflection that these guys are incapable of.
I don’t believe I could possibly improve upon Danica’s stellar explication of McLaren’s non-apology apology. However, seeing as there are clearly people in this discussion thread who are disinclined to lend equal weight and credibility to the words of a woman when there’s a perfectly good white man about I will endeavor to break down one particularly telling statement (to me, at least) in McLaren’s non-apology apology so that, perhaps, something might pierce the fog McLaren is attempting to deploy as a defensive shroud.
In the first paragraph of his comment, Brian McLaren wrote, “I was one of several people who had been asked by both Tony and Julie in 2008 to help them in a time of marital crisis. We tried our best to help, but the marriage didn’t survive.”
I don’t know Brian McLaren personally so I’m left to discern what sort of person he is based upon his conduct—a practice I strongly recommend in any and all cases regardless of how well one knows another person, to be quite honest. Upon reading the above-quoted statement, my first thought was, “Oh, he’s that guy.” There have been a breathtaking number of “that guys” in this comment thread, but McLaren managed to distinguish himself as a real oner in that category merely by having the audacity to offer that statement in a public forum. You’ve heard of a man’s man, I’m sure. McLaren has now shown himself to be a “that guy’s that guy.”
McLaren first offers a not-terribly-subtle claim of authority by which to establish his bona fides, and to stave off any challenges to his account, one would assume. But the thing which leaps out at me in the statement above is the second sentence. My training, academically speaking, is in logic and rhetoric, and having taught first year college students I tend to read everything as though I’m grading. It’s a habit I have been unable to quit despite not having stood before a classroom in more than a decade.
Having offered that caveat, what I would ask everyone kindly to take note of is the shifting of responsibility between the first clause and the second clause of that second sentence. In clause one, McLaren states that he, along with the other Emergent leaders Julie has named, tried their very best. However, in clause two he doesn’t continue by saying that those leaders failed in their task. No, it was the marriage which failed. While most people wouldn’t notice it, this is a crucial shift, and it was deftly done.
It seems to me that McLaren has tipped his hand rather significantly. His shift from active to passive voice is difficult to detect unless one obsessively notices such things, but its effect on the reader is no less powerful for that fact. Just as a book cannot write itself, a marriage cannot fail of its own volition. The individuals who have entered a marriage make choices which directly influence whether or not they are able to maintain that relationship, so it’s the actors within the relationship who succeed or fail. Likewise, those who attempt to intercede to save a marriage can either succeed or fail in that endeavor.
By dint of subtle phrasing, McLaren has not only moved to absolve Tony Jones of any responsibility for the end of his marriage. He has also attempted to relieve his colleagues of any responsibility in failing to save it. Of course, that was the point of his entire comment. Had McLaren even implied that there was fault to be assigned then he would necessarily have left himself open to being questioned as to who was at fault and how. Assuming he offered clarification (doubtful), he would then have to defend both his judgement regarding who was at fault and the nature of that fault, and that leaves him entirely vulnerable to Julie’s counterpoints. The real peril for McLaren comes from Julie’s claims that he and the other Emergent leaders in question did not, in fact, attempt to save her marriage, but instead took an active role in ending it in favor of a pairing they found more suitable for their friend and colleague. For McLaren, that is a slippery slope he most certainly does not wish to find himself on since answering one question would inevitably lead to him having to answer more, and with each successive answer the slope beneath him would become steeper and slipperier. Most importantly, though, is the fact that his shift in the second sentence betrays a knowledge on his part that there is some amount of damaging information which is rising dangerously close to the surface, hence his refusal to offer details despite taking the trouble to appear on this thread.
Seeing that Julie has made it clear in multiple comments here that she is entirely willing to open the books for anyone who cares to challenge her version of events, we’re left with only one conclusion. Despite McLaren’s posture of showing reasonable and responsible judgement, allowing full disclosure is very likely to lead to not insignificant damage to Tony Jones. That McLaren is now publicly circling the wagons would also seem to indicate that there is substantial risk of damage for the others Julie has named as being accessories to the wrongs committed against her. The potential for damage must go well beyond dings to reputation.