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
In my experience, Brian McLaren is the one emergent co-founder who has been willing to bare witness to the wounding present in this community. During tough times he stayed in dialogue with me even when it was hard and we disagreed. I don’t believe he deserves this beating and I wish folks would give him the benefit of the doubt. I would venture to say that anything you are reading into his response says more about you than it does about him. I imagine just about anyone who has spent any time with him can recognize the loving kindness practice that he most certainly practices as he is, at the end of the day, a loving and compassionate man. I’m not going to argue this point further and I’m not gonna make anyone wrong for disagreeing with me, but I need to say how much I hate to see Brian demonized in this thread. Again I grieve for the pain that people in this community have experienced.
@Stephanie Drury: fair points all.
Appearing to do the right thing while protecting your buddies’ interests is what the Catholic church did in covering up their sex abuse scandal and it’s what Sovereign Grace ministries did in covering up their scandal, etc. etc. I am not calling anyone blacker than Satan. But doesn’t Satan disguise himself as an angel of light?
Here’s how I read Brian’s apology:
" 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."
- Brian states his good intentions here. And also subtly throws Tony under the bus (Tony and Julie ASKED him for his help … but even though Brian tried his best to help, Tony and Julie weren’t able to hold it together)
“I read through all the postings on this thread and checked back as the list grew. I saw significant discrepancies between the version of the story that was being told on this thread and my experience and understanding of what actually happened. "
- Brian here calls Julie a liar, and implies that his understanding of the situation is better than hers (gaslighting again)
“However, I was at a distance and was only peripherally involved because I extricated myself from the situation early on. Because I take accusations of spiritual abuse seriously (as, I’m sure, do all the people named in Julie’s email), in recent days I’ve gone back in my email archives and reread the many emails Julie sent or forwarded to me during and since 2008.”
- Several things here. One, he contradicts himself from the previous paragraph where he implies his experiences and understanding are superior. This is classic manipulation, because by stating superior knowledge, then saying, ‘of course I could be wrong’, you effectively close off argument that you are wrong. Two, the ‘many emails’ Julie sent him paints her as a needy, unstable woman …after all, he was just trying to help Tony and Julie keep their marriage together, but obviously she (and he) didn’t take his advice. Third, he implies here again that he knows more of the situation than everyone else here, having been involved since 2008, which makes all of our opinions irrelevant.
“I have come to see a few things that could have been done differently, especially with the benefit of hindsight. I also see areas where, if the counsel given to Julie and Tony had been followed more fully, outcomes could have been better”
- Here he more overtly throws Tony under the bus. If Tony (and Julie) had only followed what he said, their marriage would have survived. He mentions ‘a few things that could have been done differently’, but does not say what they are, thereby effectively refusing to take any personal responsibility. It’s all Tony’s and Julie’s fault. Brian has been a good friend and only tried to help.
“But I have never witnessed or observed anything even close to abuse by any of the people named; in fact, I have only witnessed sincere and solid pastoral care in a tragic and volatile situation, right up to this moment. "
- Again, he’s saying here that Julie is lying. No abuse happened, by Tony and CERTAINLY not by Brian himself (who was only trying to give sincere and solid pastoral care in a tragic and volatile situation). The word ‘volatile’ insinuates that Julie is mentally unstable, more gaslighting.
“I think that someone on this thread made a good suggestion. She shared that she was once accused of something. A group of qualified and mature people reviewed the evidence in a responsible way. She suggested taking what has been shared on this thread, along with information that can’t in good conscience be shared in public, for private professional review, making use of structures developed by denominations over many years of dealing with situations like these.”
—-Several things. First, by referencing the person ‘accused of something’, Brian again implies that this is just a mere accusation, a nontruth, a lie, and that he himself, as well as Tony and everyone else mentioned by Julie, are innocent. Second, ‘a group of qualified and mature people’ to review the evidence – Brian is saying here that everyone participating in the conversation here are neither qualified (despite the many who say they are survivors of experiences just like this one, not to mention Julie herself), nor mature (this follows the party line that people here are mere internet rubberneckers taking voyeuristic pleasure in watching the train wreck of a marriage). Third, he hints that there is information that he and others are holding back because they can’t ‘in good conscience’ share it – what could this be other than more dirty and nasty and crazy things Julie has done, from which Brian and Tony et al are graciously protecting her by letting it not be known. Again gaslighting Julie, while elevating Brian to the level of benevolent would be protector. Fourth, it’s highly ironic that Brian appeals to higher denominational authority to review the ‘evidence’, when he himself is unwilling to submit to any leadership, being an independent pastor (correct me if I’m wrong here please)
“I think that is a good idea, and I will do my best to see it is done. Because I have some idea of the legal dimensions of situations like this, I do not believe it is wise or appropriate to say anything else at this time.”
- Brian hints a vague legal threat (see I can do this too: liability! slander! legal! tort! these words hold a lot of weight when they really shouldn’t). Then he uses ‘legal dimensions’ as an excuse to not come back here and face any people who would ask him questions. This shows he is not interested in dialogue.
In summary:
Brian is just being a good friend and providing solid pastoral help in a tragic situation in which his trusted friend Tony was sadly married to a mentally unbalanced woman. Despite Brian’s efforts to help, the marriage fell apart (it perhaps would not have if Tony and Julie had taken Brian’s advice instead of sending an avalanche of needy, emotional emails). Brian has no responsibility to claim here, since Julie is lying about all the physical, spiritual and emotional abuse. Tony has some responsibility because he didn’t take Brian’s advice. Julie has the most responsibility because she is a liar and a vindictive, unbalanced woman. Brian would like to talk further about this, but sadly commenting on Internet forums is inviting lawsuits, so everybody should be quiet now so that they don’t get sued.
The End.
To be fair, I don’t think BMcL just intentionally spat in Julie’s face or gave her the finger. I think he tried to find a way to appear to do the right thing while protecting his and his buddies’ interests. This doesn’t in any way excuse him: what he should have done is made a full and unreserved apology. But painting him (or anyone else) as blacker than satan isn’t really helpful.
(BTW, I have absolutely no dog in this fight, and am absolutely on the side of the victim(s).)