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
@David,
Thanks for summarizing the back-channel campaign against the thread. It’s always the same… your summary now is very much like what some of us experienced in 2009-10 and this was all so fresh.
1. Calling a website a blog is not a derogatory term. A blog with a community of discussion like this is an excellent place to bring this out since it’s easy for many voices to weigh in, rather than just those specially chosen to give their view. The suggested alternative is ignoring it altogether, which is unjust.
2. If they’re such great people, they’ll be fine with a little critique, and be open to learn from it even when it’s difficult to hear. That’s what great people do.
3. There are at least 2 sides to every story. Tony dropped by and commented already, and is fully welcome to tell his side right here alongside Julie’s. His decision not to do that does not provide justification to silence Julie when she’s decided to tell her side. In fact, a refusal to put his side into the same contexts leads one to believe it won’t stand up to scrutiny.
4. The private vitriol I received was worse than anything that’s been said here publicly. Saying it privately doesn’t mean it’s not nasty. (Not sure if you received the same level, but I know others who have.)
5. What about the children, indeed? Tony’s actions seem to show more disregard than anything here.
6. Legal action keeps being threatened, but I’ve yet to receive my summons. As litigious as American society has become, a decent lawyer can still spot a case with no merit and advise a client accordingly.
7. Moderation is not the same as censorship. The back-channel campaign is saying “moderation” but demanding censorship.
The main thing in this context is for those who have wronged Julie by supporting/enabling Tony’s crazy-campaign to apologize for those actions, removing that support… even in retrospect, it’s something. The child support issue really bothers me though. That more than anything, I think, says something about Tony’s character. And here he’s apparently got funds to spend on lawyers to go around suing bloggers but can’t offer anything to support his kids? Don’t malign him or he won’t be able to support the kids? Sounds more like the issue is with his wilful attempts to control of the situation by withholding finances. What about the children, indeed?
Oh, and by the way… we were talking way back in this thread about the spiritual wife horsesh!t, and I finally grasped what that means.
When you go to Doug Pagitt and tell him “Hey, my marriage really sucks and I feel like it’s been over for a while now but it’s really not my fault because I’m a good guy but what can I do because I have this person attached to me as my legal wife but I think she’s crazy and it’ll never be like we’re really married but you know, that’s not so bad because there’s this other person who I feel like should be my wife but can’t be because I have this other legal wife and she’s also married to someone else, but never mind that, I just feel like I should have a different, I don’t know, a spiritual wife like God would want rather than this crazy legal wife like I have, so there should be two kind of wife I think.” And then Doug says, “Gee, that sucks. I think you’re right, you should have the happiness of a different kind of marriage, a… a spiritual marriage to a spiritual wife. Because of course you should be happy. And I think this whole legal/spiritual wife thing is such a good idea I want you to keep on being the theologian-in-residence at my church, and I’ll help you convince other people that your legal wife is crazy so you should have a spiritual wife instead.”
So that’s how you get two kinds of wives, and that’s how we understand that “spiritual wife” = “on second thought, the wife you’d rather have”.
Sarah Cunningham who ran to defend early on in this thread just happens to be speaking at the upcoming Christianity 21 conference, but I am sure her defense is unrelated. http://c21.thejopagroup.com/speaker-lineup/40/ Sad to see Glennon Melton author of Carry On, Warrior and Momastary blog speaking there…she has NO idea!
@David, /applause for offering up the online space for this, truly, the power of the blog. I used to run a semi-popular forum back in the early pioneer days so I kind of know the pressure being exerted on you to delete, moderate, etc.
I must say, there are always at least 3 sides to a story, but I must confess, I find Tony Jones (and Doug Pagitt and others that “circled the wagons”) behavior to be very non-just, cowardly and a model of un-Jesus-dojo. I don’t think Julie is asking much, for an apology, but I think Tony needs to come clean — his deeds in this are reprehensible. And ducking behind private emails and lawyers and “view the public court record” is bunk.
I (and family) entertained some interest in C21 conference, coming to AZ in a few months, but after reading this, I don’t believe we’ll be heading to that event. Divorce can be messy, but the stunts that Tony and his inner circle pulled go beyond that brokenness. I’d have much more respect for him if he just said “I did wrong. I’m sorry. I failed at this.” But I don’t get that — I just see him eagerly just snuffing out any information or just sweeping it under the rug. I know it sucks to have dirty laundry aired, but this looks like more that airing of dirty laundry — if Julie is correct (and I realize I’m hearing her side in this thread), denigrating your partner to give you an out, and maintain your state of paragon exemplar in ministry strikes me as a sinister act.
I will not give names. But essentially it’s the same script:
1. Is a blog as the best forum for the publication of such information?
2. The leaders being challenged, even though they may have faults, are great people.
3. There are two sides to every story.
4. This is too nasty.
5. What about the children?
6. Cautioning me with suggestions of legal action.
7. Questioning my ability to moderate.
My response is pretty consistently the same:
1. The silenced will use any means that makes itself available to them.
2. Are we more interested in the truth or in ministries, character or reputations?
3. True, but only one side has been heard so far.
4. Confessions and disclosures are messy.
5. Julie apparently has custody and she’s okay with this.
6. I have said nothing to defame anyone.
7. I’ve never censored comments. My passion is providing safe spaces for people to exercise their voices.
The truth is, I consider myself in relationship with everyone. Including those who have written me personally. I would still consider them my brothers and sisters. I am not taking sides of any person, but I am hopefully taking the side of the enlightening of truth. I’ve simply provided a space. It’s not that I’m wiping my hands clean of responsibility. It’s that I would not prohibit anyone from commenting here in their own way. I love the good fruit that is coming out of this, and I’m confident we’ll see more.
Wow I used to read a little of TJ’s blog after being away from anything related to the church for a long time. I remember him having a little rant about his ex, sharing his side of the story. I am glad Julie you have had a safe place to tell yours. This has been amazing to read. If the mother of his children was indeed so troubled, surely the man of Gods response is to help her. The men of God’ s response would be to surround her in love. The spiritual wife stuff ….makes me want to throw up. I bought a book of TJ s in the forward is a glowing tribute to Julie. I wonder if the onset of the “mental illness” coincided with the new relationship with the spiritual wife. Anyway this triggered so many feelings and memories for me. Julie I can’t imagine how painfull this has been for you. Thank you David for providing a safe place for the less “powerful”