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
Holly …. you have to be heard before you can heal.
@Julie – I am sorry. We handled that poorly. It was wrong and for that I am sorry.
@Becky – From my recollection, Tony asked me to remove Courtney’s name from the EV website, but then Tony made those changes himself. Doug had nothing to do with it, so I’m not sure why you’ve heard he has allegedly claimed such. Doug had very little involvement (if any) in the EV website during the short time I was involved (2006-2009).
I haven’t really commented on EC topics since I bowed out 6-7 years ago, but my sadness over what was lost when that community withered is all coming back to me having read this thread. Writing this was somewhat cathartic.
The thug and his theology are one and the same, neither really comes first. Your actions reflect what you believe, and your actions form your character. Central to your character is your ability to reason well. So, it all kind of happens at once, at least according to the traditional Christian theology of the person, with which I agree.
This is related to why this idea of two marriages is wrong. Alisdair MacIntyre, who is a fairly transparent inspiration for this idea, suggested we retreat from modern institutions into small monastery-like communities in order to rebuild the moral foundation of character – an integrated set of beliefs and morality – that modernity has undermined. You don’t get to pick and choose the institution you want to retreat from, and even if you did, legal marriage is not a modern institution. Challenging pastors to retreat from legal marriage obligations seems like a pretty bourgeois protest. Why would we do anything to further undermine one of the few pre-modern institutions that still survives on life support, and that is central to forming men and women of good character?
I agree with Tony that Driscoll’s theology and character are bound up together – I think that’s true for everyone. I’m concerned about Tony’s theology, whose philosophical foundations I criticized pretty consistently while I was involved in EC in 2004-7 before bowing out because Tony seemed more into pushing with some arrogance a pomo philosophy he never really studied in school than he was into fostering dialogue (I went back to just reading the wonderful books of Brian McLaren which is how I got involved in the first place). And it’s Tony’s theology that makes me inclined to think Julie should be heard – not in order to agree with her or to judge Tony, but because that’s simply how character works. Character isn’t some private thing you get to hide inside of you. It’s out there, reflected to greater or lesser degrees in your actions, your written and spoken words, and the testimonies of those closest to you.
Same notice as given above by others – any ad hominems in private emails will be posted here.
Hi Holly: Thanks for commenting. Here’s the thing: It might be “old news” to you, but it isn’t to many. I thought I’ve been “in the loop” for years. But I haven’t heard the other side of the story, really, until it started to be posted here. This is the illusion that being on the inside creates. You think that everybody knows and believes what you know and believe. I’ve really only heard one official and authorized side of the story. Now I’m hearing the unofficial and unauthorized of the story, and suddenly things don’t seem as clear.
It makes me wonder how important this story is. Is it just nonsense? If so, it would probably be ignored. Is it significant? If so, then it would explain why there are so many voices joining the public conversation and so many voices trying to silence it privately.
I can see your passion for diverse movements, Holly, and I wish to http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergentvillage/2013/01/by-invitation-only-private-summit-actually-threatens-to-undermine-emergence-christianity/ acknowledge your public advocacy in this area :
“The invite-only nature of this [emergence Christianity 2012/2013] meeting not only excludes people and hurts feelings, but is also an expression of hierarchical organizing. As a movement that exults and develops practitioners of flat structures, the exclusive nature of this summit was completely out of line with who we are. It also violates the principle of the invitation inherit to successful social movements. Essentially two white men invited their friends and had a secret, exclusive strategy meeting on the state of the movement and most of us were not invited.”
And also http://www.patheos.com/blogs/emergentvillage/2013/01/open-conversation-friendships-movements/ quote from your follow-up discussion :
“I still want to discourage folks from invitation-only organizing. It creates a hierarchy based on accessibility, which in this community seem to be based on, well, friendships. I’m not knocking friendships, just wondering about the limitations of friendship based organizing.
One of the things I have noticed as an outsider coming into this conversation in the past two years is the dynamic between “outsiders” encountering the code of “insiders” in the movement. (Sorry for the dualistic language here – I agree it can be problematic.) A way I see this showing up is in this idea of “friendships.” There is a code among many of the of the veterans of this movement that is about letting the work evolve out of authentic, organic friendships. That’s actually pretty lovely, and part of what attracted me to the emergence church is its relational focus. The problem with organizing based on friendships, is when you aren’t friends with the movers and shakers who are organizing."
Thank you for encouraging openness and transparency. It is a rare and precious thing in social movements.