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
@Tim I appreciate your questions around privilege. Most of my work in emergent has been around challenging unseen white privilege, power, critiquing leadership and advocating for transparency, action and multiculturalism. @Julie, Im really sorry you were hurt. I hope this space serves you in your healing.
@Holly To Steve’s credit, he is the only US emergent figure who apologized to me for spreading rumors I’m batshit via the Emergent Village network. However, he has yet to speak publicly even though these very public rumors were spread online during the time he was the webmaster of the EV network. As these battles were public and not private, I issued a public apology via the Sojourners God’s Politics blog in 2010 (can’t find the link as they revamped the site) and in my book Jesus Died For This? (Also I tried to meet with a few folks privately in person when they came to NYC with no success.)
I’ve lost track of the # of people I’ve met in professional settings who have said words to the effect or “You’re not crazy like the emergent boys said you were.” Now that I’m not in the Xn industrial complex world, I don’t give a rat’s ass what any professional Christian thinks. But just because the gaslighting pushed me out of the toxic cesspool that’s become Xn publishing and into some really kick ass work doesn’t justify how these boys behave – and again, this isn’t about me — there’s a host of others but it’s up to them to do what Julie is doing and tell their stories. Preach it sisters (and a few brothers who got slammed as well) … :)
In a similar vein, I’ve heard countless times that Doug directed Steve to scrub the website of any mention of Courtney Perry (and have seen screen grabs that prove said scrubbing) post-Christianity 21. If Steve did not do this, then it would behove him to come clean because Doug is accusing him of something pretty serious here. If he did do this, then fess up and explain what was really going on behind the scenes. Julie has the right to know what was done to discredit her and how the truth was obfuscated for years.
Sorry but Steve was a major player here …
Holly, I know it’s slightly impolite, but how do you make your money?
How do you hope to make your money?
http://hollyroach.com/greenfilm/ Film Consulting?
http://hollyroach.com/career/workshops/ Workshops?
Book sales?
Paid ministry?
How many of these depend on the success and reputation of those around you?
Can you see the privilege and power and connections?
Another http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2010/04/06/is-sojourners-for-straights-only/ snippet from Tony’s blog:
“When I’m asked — as I often am — why the EC is so white, I have a threefold answer:
1. Five years ago everyone was saying that we were too male, but people aren’t saying that anymore because women are now leading the movement. So be patient.
2. There’s probably a lot more racial diversity in the movement than you think; you’d better look beyond the skin color of the best-selling authors to make your assessment.
3. The EC is not an evangelistic movement. I don’t mean that in reference to the gospel, but to the movement itself. The EC is not about growing the EC. It’s about catalyzing an ecclesial and theological conversation and about building a network of friendship in which these conversations can safely take place."
I wouldn’t feel safe in a network with conversations like those described in these comments.
I wouldn’t feel safe in a network where male leaders were so dismissive of women (see earlier posts).
And it’s not sufficient to point away from the leaders and best-sellers – they are the ones with the social and financial power. (And what about LGBT people in the network?)
cute little side note to the Rod Dreher video with a very still legally married Tony…his mistress filmed it and giggles throughout…kinda cute. Cue cackle at 5 min 40 secs http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=rod+dreher+anf+toy+jones+videoandFORM=VIRE1#view=detailandmid=C0EA42AA93069E33CD36C0EA42AA93069E33CD36