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
@Chris Hill … I re-read your comment about belief structures and think I get what you’re saying. One of the things I do in my research writing is to analyze what to me seems even deeper than just the beliefs to the underlying epistemologies that support very specific ways that individuals (and sometimes, entire cultures) process all incoming information. It’s sort of the glue we use that puts everything together. (Part of my formal training is in linguistics, and i focused on cross-cultural communications. So, it’s intriguing to me how Christians, for instance, from different first language groups can seem to have the same belief structures, but still end up with lots of different cultural conflicts. How can that happen if we have the same beliefs? Something else must be going on.
And i write about paradigm analysis, and gestalt of context, and how transformation is a process of fill in gaps and filing off excesses, and about patterns and possibilities, and other stuff that is sooo abstract that it doesn’t always connect with a lot of people. Seems too ethereal for many. However, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or isn’t important. It’s just that it’s hard to communicate some of these notions in language that’s understandable. So, as it turns out, much of what I end up doing is using metaphors, analogies, word pictures — like comparing “epistemology” (who even knows what that is besides philosophers?) (and actually, do all of them get it?) oops. went all random for a moment. Like comparing “epistemology” to glue that holds info-bits into pictures we can understand. Metaphors and the like put abstract concepts together with concrete objects or images, so that often seems to help bridge the gap between people with opposite learning styles and communication styles. There’s usually something in a metaphor that people from any info processing style background can find at least some common ground with.
Anyway, there’s that, for what it’s worth. Hope you won’t feel chased off for sharing your thoughts, Chris. People may not realize that for those who process information abstractly (and research shows that we all do to some degree), sharing the abstract stuff we think about truly is an aspect of our being vulnerable. And there are all kinds of abstractions that influence us every day. Emotions are abstract. So are thoughts, and strategies, and patterns in data sets, and conceptual mathematics, and … yadda-yadda. Can’t see them, touch them, hold them. But there they are anyway, known by their outworkings. So, sharing our experiences of what we’re abstracting thinking show where our passion in life is, and it’s just as much a part of how we were uniquely designed by God as is the ways people who aren’t like us process info how they’re “wired” to.
But at any rate, hope what i said made sense, and if i reeeally didn’t get it though I thought I did, you’ll let me know.
Brad
Since that’s what you think, Danica, and three others seem to agree with you, I’ll leave the conversation. I’ll remove my comments as well, including the one where stupid me risked being vulnerable myself. I hope all works out for you Julie. <3
I am also struck, catching up on the comments, on how similar all the arguments of the supporters of Tony are on this thread:
1. They keep reducing this discussion to being about a ‘divorce’ (thereby a private matter that should be discussed privately)
2. They keep insisting there are two sides of the story, and we must be sure to hold judgement until we hear both sides (but refuse to offer the other side)
3. They shame the participants of this discussion by likening them to rubbernecking motorists (my analogy)
4. They refuse to engage with Julie directly, and instead speak to the group as a whole (attempting to quietly push her back into the dark corner they have bullied her into for years)
5. They use Reasonable Language and the Calm Tone of what I would guess a self-important psychologist might use when imparting his/her Wisdom on the poor mentally imbalanced patient
6. They ask us to all go away and be quiet please because our discussion here is Hurting a Man of God (barf)
Chris, I honestly kept thinking you were trying to distract from the very real healing and conversation that was happening here by throwing in your theoretical and abstract musings.
The irony that Musick can’t face it.
Doesn’t want to face it.
Doug won’t face it.
I’d have so many crude words to say for the coward but I think he’d just think ALL of them as personal attacks and he’d act as if he’s being martyred.
Can a hyperfanatical Christian be diagnosed with NPD?