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
Mike, you can read some of the background and tone http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2014/09/04/some-thoughts-about-mark-driscoll/ in Tony’s original post at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2014/09/04/some-thoughts-about-mark-driscoll/ (Tony’s blog entry prompted David’s cartoon at the top of this post):
“Probably what was most disconcerting to those Baby Boomer pastors was that many of my peers, Mark included, were the heirs apparent to their megachurch kingdoms. But most of them have spurned that. Brian McLaren, Doug Pagitt, Chris Seay, Danielle Shroyer, Brad Cecil — each of them pastored or pastors a small or mid-sized church. Of the original emergent group, only Mark went on to megachurch superstardom.”
[I’m sure I’ve seen some of those names in this thread – no wonder they want to control their image as pastors.]
“Sure, Mark had personality traits that all of us saw even in 1998 that would lead him eventually to a very reified and right wing theology. He was also brilliant, hilarious, and an egomaniac. He loved the spotlight and hogged the mic. But he wasn’t evil. He was passionate. We all were.
But somewhere it spun out of control."
Indeed.
For those who are interested, this post is now #5 when I search for “Tony Jones” (your ranking may vary)
https://www.google.com.au/?q=tony+jones
Way to go, David… staying true to yourself! If you would have caved (and I never thought you were going to do so), I still would still have accepted you as you are, always holding out for what you would still become. Lol, the story of my own life, as one who spends a lot of time in self-examination. Nothing’ but love here for you, and this thread, and for Julie.
@David Hayward, is there any chance you could post some of those emails, messages, etc., so we can be educated in how this works behind the scenes. I’m not interested in names, I’m curious as to methodology. Is it all legal threats? Is it good ol’ boy network back scratching? I’m accustomed to whispering campaigns in church among people who know each other, not out in the worldwide webs attempting to manipulate someone else’ publishing. #naive #IKR
Well, Julie (and David), it would appear that this post has hit a nerve. People don’t try and suppress something, and hide the fact that they’re trying, unless it’s serious… and shameful. (And it doesn’t work – anyone ever heard of the Streisand effect?)
All this attempted “image management” shows a pretty comprehensive awareness of the issues raised here. (And, giving full credit to the experiences of the victim, consciousness of guilt for past actions.)
I can’t imagine how anyone reading this thread could miss Julie’s requests for an apology. Even if they’ve only read parts of the thread, it’s been repeated several times.
It’s a simple, genuine request, from someone who could demand a lot more. Some who were involved have come and apologised in response.
Many of those who have demanded control the conversation in the past, can’t stop attempting to do the same here. Power and control can be quite seductive, and very difficult to give up. But now, despite their efforts, the story is public.
I wonder if there will be a public (“official”?) response.
I genuinely hope it’s an apology. Even if it is costly, it’s the least anyone could do to make things right.
I was a grunt in the Christian machine that supported this behaviour. I read the books and blogs, and didn’t ask enough critical questions. And when those around me did ask questions, I ignored them.
I feel awful for supporting systems that allow people to be victimised in silence. I hate that my money, time, and energy went to support the power of the oppressors. It’s just not right.
I am honoured to be able to see this particular situation put right by Julie sharing the truth publicly. I’m hopeful that she will continue to receive apologies. As someone once said: “the truth will set you free”.