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
@Tim It bears repeating – in even the most sex positive communities, the notion of a spiritual and a legal wife is bogus. Rather, one has loving partners based on mutual respect and consent. Otherwise, it’s considered cheating. (And yes, one can cheat in an open relationship by not being truthful in one’s actions.) As I’m an LGBT ally, I will leave it up to those in the LGBT community to offer their perceptions of how Tony has used the community over the years to advance his own agenda.
@David what you describe is a similar pattern that I’ve observed for how both Mars Hill and US emergent leaders deal with criticism. Dismiss any negative commentary in public by proclaiming “let’s all be Christlike” or the “We’re being persecuted for being pioneers” card while going gonzo behind the scenes. As long as their respective fan bases buy into their missional buzz, they only see the charismatic Mr. Hyde. Hence, they cannot believe there is also the narcissistic counterpart Mr. Hyde lurking behind the scene.
@Andrew thank you for your public apology to Julie. I know it’s difficult for anyone connected to Mars Hill and US emergent as you are to take such a stance. So my heart goes out to you here. My hope is others will follow suit. And I get why you would think those demonized by the US emergent boys might be “batshit” because the natural response of someone who has been subjected prolonged gaslighting by a skilled person with NPD and signs of sociopathic tendencies is to go ballistic and behave in manners that can make one scratch their head. However, once they are in a healthier space, they can begin to heal though unfortunately by that point, too many within the abusive circle still regard them as “batshit.” (In fact, one of my major objections to these boys calling their critics “mentally ill” is that it demonizes those who truly have a mental illness by dismissing them as “batshit” instead of seeing them as having an issue that like say diabetes that can be controlled with proper treatment.)
@Julie raises an excellent point re Sarah and Holly. Check out the affiliations and funding streams of all who defend US emergent and TJ in particular and you’ll find they are connected to Sparkhouse, JoPa, Homebrewed Xnity, the movement launched by Brian titled Cana Initiative where Tony bragged via his blog he was one of the early players (http://www.canainitiative.org/initiators.html), Outlaw Preachers, Steve Knight’s Transform Network and so on.
Getting the truth out at Mars Hill and the US emergents has been next to impossible in large part due to the pull of the Christian industrial complex. For years, people knew if they spoke out against Driscoll, the Acts29 Network would work into overdrive to ensure they were persona non grata at any church or conference in this network – same dynamic was in place with the EV network. Those of us who critiqued MHC and EV circa 2006-2007 found ourselves ostracized and gaslighted with our professional reputations and personal characters dragged through the missional mud. People knew the consequences of speaking out and so they stayed silent and the ungodly gaslighting continued unabashed.
But as the spirit continued to work behind the scenes (she’s a sneaky little sucker) and within a few years, both brands seemed to have lost their original luster and spaces began to emerge where more people began speaking out – e.g., see the fury over Driscoll’s Real Marriage (2012) and Phyllis Tickle’s Great Emergence Memphis speech [birthed @emergentdudebro meme] (2013). Still in both cases, there was enough missional muscle to eventually squelch dissent – for example, speak out and you can forget about promoting your book via the Acts 29 or JoPa events.
We’ve now hit the tipping point in both cases where both the MHC and Emergent brand have the integrity of say Enron and AIG – no matter how you try to put the lipstick on the pig, it still stinks and squeals. No one wants to play their reindeer games anymore – game over. People realize they can now go public and speak without the repercussions that were not present when some of us went public in years past. Furthermore, one finds the rise of communities such as the ex-Mars Hill Facebook groups and the Naked Pastor blog that shine with hope.
Keep preaching the truth – it’s working.
Holly, I won’t presume to speak for Julie, as she has shown herself to be a far better communicator than I. She is also quite good at finding the public power connections between those who drop in on this discussion. (Privilege warning!)
But as far as I understand from reading the whole thread:
1. Previous attempts to have an open and honest discussion have been shut down using scare tactics against various bloggers. Despite this desire to end discussion, one side of the story has been presented by Tony Jones, Doug Pagitt, Danielle Shroyer, Mike King, Brian McLaren, Brad Cecil and perhaps others. (Many of whom are pastors with positions of power, livelihoods, and income to protect. Privilege warning!)
2. Julie appreciates having a space to be heard. (Is this the first time you’ve felt heard, Julie?)
3. Julie has simply and repeatedly asked for an apology.
4. Some people involved have offered an apology.
5. This is an ongoing process.
In this context, please don’t push anyone to move on. It’s premature, and you risk looking like those in point 1 who act to suppress discussion. And I note from Julie’s latest post that you also have a strong board, ministry and community association to those involved in the whitewash.
Do you feel a strong need to protect position, income, or reputation? Of yourself or close associates?
How sad. And how privileged.
Holly, you are on a leadership board with Steve Knight who busily and at the directive of Doug Pagitt cleaned up the Emergent Village website and deleted comments and the board bio page where Courtney Perry’s bio detailed her married to another man. I wish this space took attachments…it would really cut to the chase. So, I am sorry but your “concern trolling” is in question here. As well as some other Emergentesque people. http://www.transformnetwork.org/about/leadership
For those who enjoy a little back-story, you can read http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/tag/two-marriages/ Tony Jones on Two Marriages at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/tag/two-marriages/ .
And you can ever get http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005N8SXFI/ Tony’s eBook for $0.99: There Are Two Marriages: A Manifesto on Marriage (stripped of affiliate tags from his site, of course).
But the free Amazon preview gives a pretty good summary:
“… having gone through a divorce, I can tell you that extricating oneself from the legal contract that is marriage in our society is no mean feat.”
“Were we to separate legal and sacramental marriage, it would solve all sorts of problems, not the least of which is the growing discomfort that many of us have that legal marriage is available only to some responsible adults who are in monogamous relationships.”
At this point, I wonder about Tony’s dual motivations in writing this: not just for the LGBT community, but also in his own situation of having both a spiritual and legal wife at one stage. I’d hate there to be any risk of the perception that the LGBT community was being used as a front for a religious adulterous straight person’s agenda. That would be truly offensive.
David I love what you do and appreciate the space that you have created for wounds to be aired. It’s sad to see the space co-opted for the continuation of personal vendettas though. When I see people airing the same wounds repeatedly for years, it makes me wonder if they really want healing? When I write critically about the emerging church, the same folks jump on board to make a case for their woundedness. At some point one has to do the work to heal and move on. I don’t think the founders of Emergent claim us anymore. So why do we claim them? Maybe we can take some collective ownership of this thing and be a movement full of leaders rather than a few leaders with a bunch of victims. I understand people are hurt, but let’s heal and evolve, transcend and include.