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
And Jenell – I think your comment has to be one of my favorite in the entire (now 400 +) thread. I love it because of your honesty, and I love it because I think it echoes what a lot of people experience in churches when they suspect abuse, but don’t say anything -the ignoring of the intuitions, the pull of ‘belonging’ to the greater group, the shame associated with telling, the pain when they do tell and then are immediately ostracized (so painful, when I’m guessing you thought you ‘belonged’ at the table, and were only participating as you thought you had right to? This too has happened to me.)
All the love to you.
I also want to say how encouraged I am by the healing going on here. It is proof against every detractor of the post, who have all said that this is NOT doing anything good for the Kingdom, and it is only causing harm so shut up already … actually … scratch that. It is proof against EVERY detractor of EVERY conversation revealing abuse and hurt and pain. This conversation we can look to next time we are tempted to be silent in the face of abuse (because sadly it’ll happen again)
Hi Chris. Thanks for coming back and explaining yourself. I honestly had assumed what I wrote before, and since you had asked how your comments were being perceived, I just wanted to give you my honest opinion (I wouldn’t have commented otherwise). Can we start over? Hi, I’m Danica.
@Chris … My thinking processes are so far out of the norm (just really different – not better, not worse) that there have been points where connecting seems really hard. Easier to do in person, much harder to do in writing. There’s a maxim that when the meaning of our words themselves are ambiguous, only 40% of the meaning comes from the words, and the other 60% of understanding is conveyed by tone of voice, facial expressions, and overall body language. Which makes online writing incredibly difficult on some topics to try to make ourselves understood because it’s hard to figure out how to compensate for tone and all that other stuff.
But it’s these very differences in how God designed us that can actually give us something unique to contribute to help us work better as teams. Our dominant modes of perceptions fill in what others have blind spots to, and vice versa. Too bad that we so often end up in conflict over the differences and let them drive us apart, when seems like they were meant for bridge-building toward community.
What seem at the moment to be nothing but random interruptions in the conversation could turn out to be the key to dealing with some problem – if we’d only take time to ask (and then listen) to why that came to mind, what stream of thinking points came together to connect the conversation to that point. And then maybe the secret for those of us who are more abstract is in those specific details that were our stepping stones to the point we were trying to make. Could turn out to be a real eye-opener, when too often we get eye rolls instead …
Anyway, there are a couple of articles I wrote about this in case you’re interested. The first one’s on learning styles, and the second is on how we can build transformational teams based on our differences which are also our strengths:
http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/tutorial-11/
http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/tutorial-12/
Jenell,
Thank you for the strength and courage to write this.
@Brad, thanks for your input, I much appreciate it. I’ve had this problem my whole life (saying the wrong thing at the wrong time and in the wrong way). I really struggle with how people assume they know my intent for commenting the way I do. I do much better with people face to face rather than on-line. I had noticed that a couple of people had commented earlier regarding the OP, so that’s what I did, as well as posting something personal having to do with the change of topic to participate in the conversation and, hopefully, help with the healing going on here in some way. It hurts for people to assume otherwise when I know that in my own heart I care deeply about this situation. It’s the same basic reason (though public in my hometown only) that I ultimately left church, and Christianity altogether (people assuming the worst about me). I’m hesitant even to post this right now for fear that others will think I’m somehow making this about me, again (which was not my intent in the first place). It’s very difficult for me to navigate this kind of terrain. Anyways, thanks again.
Chris.