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
Brian would have been better served by just saying nothing. It’s like every time someone with an EC financial / power / tribal interest comments here, they just further confirm the history of control and obfuscation and corruption and abuses that have remained hidden, but are now coming to light.
If anyone else wants to come here and “apologize” please don’t embarrass yourself, or insult the emotional intelligence of the very bright and empathic people here, many who have faced real abuse at the hands of religious leaders. If you can’t simply apologize without pathetic caveats and legal-religious-psychological babble-weaseling, then just don’t say anything.
First, context and full disclosure, this is me: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergentvillage/2013/06/i-am-emergent-village/
Thank you all for sharing this space and having this conversation. I have read every comment. I can not speak to the facts of any of it, aside from two things. 1. Having experienced Doug’s attempts to silence and shutdown internal critique on the EV facebook page. And 2. The silencing, shaming, abuse and lies experienced by Lost Voice.
Change doesn’t come from us all being polite decorum and waiting out turn to speak. Change and healing are most often messy and require that all the shit be brought to the surface and sorted through. I was reminded of this recently in workshops with both Chris Crass (Collective Liberation) and Pete Rollins (yes, THAT guy).
I’ve been rather disconnected from the EV world the past 6 months or so, but I know that there are those working to challenge oppression, misogyny and white supremacy. This is good work. However, it does not preclude the damage that has been done over the years in the name of EV. We have to own our histories – the systemic evils that have been committed.
I have personally experienced narcissim and spiritual abuse in another context, and I understand the manipulation and isolation involved.
I confess, I was struggling with my decision to attend a local church conference I attend every year, this weekend. As in years past, there will be people there who initiated and participated in the behavior that harmed Lost Voice. That’s always been a source of tension for me, yet in my privilege I chose to attend anyway. This year Brian McLaren is one of the speakers, and given this current discussion I can not in good conscience sit and listen. I have always tried to walk that fine line of peacekeeper, but I no longer know which way is up. I would rather spend the time in Examen of my own complicitness and complacency than to keep sweet and take good notes.
All we can do is what is within our control. Speak truth. Listen. And cultivate practices that liberate rather than dominate.
Having read BMcL’s comment a couple more times and thought about it some more, I’d like to retract my previous comment (time stamp 12:49 pm). Brother Maynard is right: making an apology is a pretty low bar to meet, and what we actually see here appears to be so much posturing.
Holly, he’s not even apologizing for one single thing. Not even for trying to have Julie committed. How should he be given the ‘benefit of the doubt’ when he won’t even take responsibility for what he’s done wrong?
@Brian,
So what I hear you saying is, “Mistakes were made. You should all have listened to me in 2008 and this wouldn’t have happened. But I’ll make sure that my group of ‘qualified mature people’ reviews the evidence, and [legal-shield-no-comment].”
I’ll grant that this thread has enough in it that it can easily take 2 days or longer to read through and consider what’s here, but after doing that, this is the best you can come up with? Thanks for nothing. I should point out that you are not in a genuine position to spearhead making sure that some “qualified mature people” reviews the evidence, both because you are a named accused and because you are have a financial interest in seeing Tony and Doug exonerated. Even after acknowledging that in hindsight, things could have been done differently, you still can’t apologize… istm that if all you’ve seen is “sincere and solid pastoral care in a tragic and volatile situation, right up to this moment”, you must have been squinting pretty hard all this time.
@All,
I’m still appalled by the fact that the courtesy of an apology still isn’t forthcoming. Not even, “Gee, I guess we really shouldn’t have tried to have you committed, especially now that we know you’re certifiably not crazy. Sorry about that.”
Note carefully that Julie isn’t even asking for justice in this thread. Don’t ever equate apologies with justice. Nobody has said anything about restitution… an apology is an extremely low bar to meet, and here it’s tripping up some pretty major “leaders” in the utmost sense possible.