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.
1080 comments
The irony, I would suggest, is in the fact that after denigrating Julie’s account as being unsupported and specious, John Musick (My Susick?), you have failed to offer any support for your own claims. Furthermore, while not technically ironic, it is rather amusing to me, whenever one such as yourself decides to indulge a bit of gaslighting and ends up getting called on it, how quickly you assume an aggrieved posture. I mean, all you wanted to do was come in, offer several terribly unflattering insinuations about everyone who has been commenting negatively regarding Tony Jones (most especially Julie), disguise them as high-minded concern for truth and justice, and get out no worse for wear. What about that do we not understand, am I right? We’re such terrible people for not acquiescing to your superior knowledge, wisdom, and judgement without issuing a demand for evidence in support of your claims. How dare we be incredulous toward you?
Seriously, John, I don’t know what you’re accustomed to encountering when you step into a conversation and tell people who have no reason to trust you that they’re all wrong, but they’ll just have to take your word on it. What’s abundantly clear is that you did not receive the response you believe you are owed. Your indignation, in my view at least, is a bonus. I don’t go through life trying never to upset people. I go through life trying always to upset the right people. So far, you’re looking suspiciously as though you belong in the latter group.
I’ll see if I can state things plainly enough to get through your thick shell of smugness: Evidence, please.
Did what I just said come across as superfluous? Just curious. Practically every time I bring up anything having to do with psychological and sociological development, I get blown off. Also, I’m aware that my communication skills over the internet aren’t always the best, too. Can anyone relate with what I’m getting at here?
I’m sure John Musick just stopped by of his own accord….
john musick
Radio Personality at Doug Pagitt Radio Show
Would I be out of line here to suggest that the structures of belief each one of us has assimilated into our very beings play a significant role in how we interpret all that is going on here? I’m not attempting in the least to diminish all that has gone on in this thread in the least, but each of us speaks (and feels) strongly from a certain perspective which each of us has assimilated over time for multitudinous reasons. I realize there is more than this going on, but I believe this to be relevant to the situation at hand and the OP, no less.
What’s the question? I’ll answer anything openly and honestly? Go….