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.
1080 comments
The most disheartening thing to me is that this all feels so, wearily, familiar. I could have written a script for how Brian, Tony, et al, have responded to this situation. Because we’ve seen it in Mars Hill, the Catholic church, SGM, Bill effing Gothard … no matter the denomination the story remains the same. Even though the emergent church touted itself as something new, something different, a place where all can come to the table and freely participate and have their voices heard … believe me, as a woman, this was something that excited me and was something I wanted to be a part of … and then to have THIS come out of it?? To see that instead of being advocates and allies they are again the same old Boys Club members that we see across Christendom??? Honestly? It really pisses me off. There really is nothing new under the sun.
@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.