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
I take it you don’t take criticism well, John.
Ironically, it seems like you’ve created your own culture here where motives are cynically questioned, honest questioning is dismissed and anything that is contrarily spoken against the actions and behavior of the group is mercilessly met with derision.
Congratulations, you’ve become the very thing you rally against.
Truly, hurt people, hurt people.
Hi John Musick:
Thanks for visiting my blog and specifically this post and making a comment.
Rather than take you on point by point, I decided I’d rather address the thrust of your comment.
Is it really mudslinging if the accusations are true? As Anne Lamott has written, “You own everything that happened to you. Tell your stories. If people wanted you to write warmly about them, they should have behaved better.”
We’ve all heard the authorized side. Now we’re hearing the unauthorized side. On the one hand it looks like the silenced are finally finding a safe place to protect their dignity, while on the other hand it appears there are some who are still trying to find a place to protect their reputations.
I understand how messy this is. Uncomfortable. Chaotic. Angry. Conflicting. But I’m convinced through experience and observation that this can be creative.
If you take some time to read through the comments, you will actually read apologies and forgiveness. And it won’t end here. I expect more to come.
Isn’t this the good fruit that rises out of the mud you wish we would conceal?
In my previous comment, I used the term interlocking directory for a professional network involving “Commenders” whose recommendations and actions prop up others who may be spiritually abusive. So, I thought I’d add some more description about the term and what exactly that network is.
Below is part of a comment I put on a post April 2014 about what could be called the “Patriarchy Oligarchy,” a cluster of close relationships that supports the patriarchy movement. At the end of it, I mention the patriarchy movement potentially experiencing a melt-down (which I think we’ve continued to see happening). I hadn’t read this comment in a while, but when i did today, it brought to mind Acts 5, and what the teacher Gamaliel said concerning the earliest Christian movement, "Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” (Acts 5:38-39, NIV, Biblegateway). Not justifying any potentially bad behavior, but just think that Gamaliel’s sentiment is relevant on this thread. The presence of anger doesn’t mean it’s automatically unjust or unrighteous … and if people go over the line with their anger, they’re responsible for that but it doesn’t mean it’s all irresponsible.
Anyway, here’s the excerpt from that comment.
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2014/04/30/the-duggars-promote-bill-gothard-and-the-pearls/#comment-141736
Over 40 years ago, an investigative reporter in my then home town did an amazing piece of work on the power brokers of our little area of the world. She research[ed] and verified how a very small number of families created an “interlocking directory” of relationships through owning major businesses, holding significant or controlling interests in multiple forms of media (both print and broadcast), serving on major philanthropical foundations and/or non-profit boards, and involving themselves in the shaping of local politics. In effect, this group formed an oligarchy — a gridlock of elites who wielded their clout throughout the region.
When the report was released through an independent media source, it created quite the stir. Those named did what they could to minimize the appearance of their influence or the depth of their interconnections, but the documentation said what it said nevertheless. And if you simply sketched out a mind-map showing the various realms of influence and the relationships among the people most intimately involved, the clusters that appeared in this connect-the-dots exercise would be hard to deny.
And all these years later, I’ve not forgotten that tenacious and courageous reporter’s term of “interlock[ing] directory.” I believe that is what we are uncovering as we see the inner workings of this “authoritarian christian industrial complex” of key individuals, families, churches, ministries, agencies, publishers, conferences, seminaries, denominations, movements. The press (including “citizen journalists” and survivor blog writers) have been pulling at the loose threads here and there, and it looks like the entire muffler may unravel as different people and organizations attempt to deny the interconnections, or minimize underlying doctrines that have given shape to their whole gridlock of power. (Such as, “We believe in different gender roles for men and women, but we aren’t that kind of patriarchy!”)
It now seems a rather large bunch of loose threads are sticking out, having primed themselves for counter-authoritarian picking and pulling. Mark Driscoll and his elders. Sovereign Grace Ministries. Bill Gothard and IBLP. Doug Phillips; Vision Forum, Inc.; and Vision Forum Ministries. And with them, out pop those knitted-in key representatives of this interlocking authoritarian directory of patriarchy, quiverfull and homeschool movement, etc.
[…]
Perhaps the “Patriarchy Oligarchy” will experience a much warranted melt-down as it gets more exposed to the light …
if Julie’s sole purpose is to harm Tony’s reputation, is there a blog out there that she’s been hosting for all of these years to continually pump this information out to the general public? If so, I’d like the link. ;)