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
He voluntarily pays not one red penny. The county has to nab it. Being self employed it is very difficult to get a real account of income and revenue streams. He also hired literally the slimiest lawyer he could find (people hire lawyers like themselves) who got it reduced to a tiny monthly fraction of what was originally agreed upon in 2008 based on his income which he himself provided. Then he said times are tough, and I can no longer pay support. We live below the line of poverty while he brags about sipping 50 year old scotch on twitter and wining and dining his way through Hawaii and European vacations. BUT honestly, we are doing great!! I got a new job as a children’s therapist intern and finishing up graduate school so that I am hopeful I will be able to pull us out of poverty within the next year or two, and into a livable range. My kids are on government school lunches and we get heating assistance and at one point he owed me over $50,000 in unpaid support while draining me with legal fees….it was sadistic! But as I said, he hired someone who is honestly (and this is not just me speaking but the entire professional family law community chiming in)….an utter disgrace to the family law profession and she is harmful to children. So NOW I actually pay him a month because she got is retroactively reduced back to November 2009. This is kind of funny….a group of family law professionals in Minneapolis actually sent her a retirement card as a joke congratulating her on leaving law practice. I thought that was kind of funny!
Lisa Miller’s http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2011/09/15/separation-of-church-and-state-in-marriage/20167 September 2011 critical response to http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2010/01/04/a-call-to-clergy-stop-performing-legal-marriages/ Tony Jones’ two kinds of marriage post/series makes some interesting points:
‘On closer inspection, the Jones protest is muddled and retrograde. It’s bad for the financially vulnerable partner (historically the woman) and for children. Marriage law has come a long way since 16th century Europe, when men controlled all the property in a marriage and held the legal right to make all the decisions.’
‘By refusing to sign marriage certificates, Jones “penalizes heterosexual couples who are coming to the church without actually winning anything for same-sex couples,” [Stephanie] Coontz says.’
‘Everybody needs these protections; a promise to God will not make a deadbeat parent pay child support.’
[Dare I even ask whether Tony Jones pays child support, Julie? I know it’s an intrusive question, so feel free to decline.]
‘Finally, there’s the question of motivation. Jones has griped publicly about the lasting trauma of his own 2009 divorce. “I got married in the state of Minnesota by the stroke of a pen,” he said. “To extricate myself took 14 months and thousands of dollars, and here the pastor has no authority.”’
’His first wife, still irate from the divorce, suspects that Jones’s position reflects not a higher principle but a wish to avoid legal entanglements the second time around, which Jones vehemently denies. “It is a total cop-out to have just a sacramental marriage,” Julie McMahon wrote in an e-mail. “I am old school and I think that loving someone wholly is to share in legal property and assets as well.”
It would be hard to find a gay-marriage advocate who believes otherwise.’
Wow. Just wow.
FWIW, here is an excerpt from Minnesota anti-SLAPP law, via the Public Participation Project website:
MINN. STAT. §554.04(2)(b) provides for a SLAPPBack cause of action. It provides that a court shall award actual damages, and may award punitive damages, if a SLAPP defendant shows that the SLAPP was brought to harass, inhibit the defendant’s public participation or exercise of constitutional rights, or otherwise wrongfully injure the defendant.
http://www.anti-slapp.org/your-states-free-speech-protection/
I’m not a lawyer, but have had to do some research on SLAPP/anti-SLAPP because threats of defamation lawsuits against those who speak out seem to arise regularly in situations that involve alleged spiritual abuse. State laws vary, but if there is an apparently frivolous lawsuit to harass someone, an anti-SLAPP counter-suit freezes the discovery process and often gets expedited treatment in the judicial system.
It’s less usual for these suits to happen in religious contexts, but it happened to a friend of mine, Julie Anne Smith, who along with four others were sued by their former pastor for defamation of character for $500,000. He lost. This document from her court case gives a great overview on SLAPP/anti-SLAPP, for those who are interested in more detail.
http://www.dmlp.org/sites/citmedialaw.org/files/2012-04-26-Smith%20Memo%20in%20Support%20of%20Special%20Motions%20to%20Strike.pdf
Julie, I bow to your talent for finding the undeclared connections of many participants in this discussion!
It does depend whether your jurisdiction has a “no prospect of success” or an “improper motive”-style vexatious litigant code. It’s much harder to prove an improper motive.
And yes, the number of declared vexation litigants in any jurisdiction can typically be counted on two hands. Very difficult. I can’t even imagine the stress. I never ever want to be involved in anything legal or administrative in my life!
Holly, sometimes the process of telling the truth can hurt before there is healing. I think you are being a little bit premature but I understand what you are saying.