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
This is the opposite of a reality tv show approach. Reality tv is heavily scripted and edited for the vicarious pleasure of viewers. Participants are chosen for their ability to create controversy while looking attractive. What’s happening here is without script or editing, and Julie is not trying to create controversy – she’s trying to resolve it, and is apparently having some success at that. People who call themselves Christians ought to be celebrating, not feeling sad.
John Music, there are indeed two sides to every story. Tony has told his quite publicly. So why isn’t Julie allowed to tell hers?
John Musick: well played. You’ve got all the bases covered. Make it sound as reasonable as you can, and make sure anyone who disagrees with you is painted as an aggressive hater. Good job.
ISTM that, among other things, at least two things are being achieved here:
1. Truths that have previously been buried or suppressed are being aired and heard.
2. Actual reconciliation is happening, viz. forgiveness being offered and received.
Regarding Julie McMahon’s comments, I don’t know her in any way, but it strikes me that your comment “it’s obvious that she desires people to rally against Tony and attempt to damage his reputation as much as she can” is, to put it mildly, judgemental bullshit.
It’s great that people have a place to come and commensurate about their experiences. It’s vital for one’s healing and growth beyond the harm that’s come to them. It’s good to see that there are people who are willing to listen and offer comfort to those who are hurting.
However, regardless of how you personally feel about Tony, the blood lust and voyeuristic glee that is being demonstrated here in response to Julie’s unaccountable torrent is deeply troubling. It’s clear from her tone and the frequency of her posting that she is hurting and has yet to reconcile the events of her life. And this is fine. Some of us may never find closure and healing is a process, not a destination.
Does it serve her, this community or the subjects of her claims to promote such an outworking of animus in such a public forum?
Because it’s obvious that one must be very clear of their intentions when disagreeing on here; I’m not trying to shut anyone down. But come on, really? The one-sided angry ex-wife diatribe? This is healthy? Are we so cynical and angry that we’re salivating at the alleged details of a religious leader’s divorce? Are we so driven by our revulsion toward that which caused us so much pain that we’re willing to accept and applaud such emotional venting without even offering the most elemental grace to the accused? It’s obvious that Julie needs people to talk to. But it’s also obvious that she desires to rally people against Tony and attempt to damage his reputation as much as she can. It is also apparent that the desire for titillation has overridden any actual desire to see Julie come to grips with where her life is.
It seems to me that you have a great opportunity to help some people here. But this level of mudslinging will help no one.
As much as we may hate to admit it, there are two sides to every story. And as a personal witness, both are not being represented here.
Let the personal attacks on me begin.
Looks like Scott Jones deleted his latest pro-Tony comment. I was directing my comment at Scott Jones and not Scott Freeman.