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
@tru — Yes, you got the gist of what I was wanting to say, except that I attempted to explain as best I could what you summarized in the first two points, but as for the “don’t ask” part, I still think this is a very important question. From an existential point of view, I see us as beings entering into a world wherein we are going to be influenced and affected by a great deal of people and experiences and, thus, be formed by them. While I believe we have significantly free-will, I believe it’s limited to some extent. Because we are caught up in the middle of such a mystery as participants of it, I believe that it will be very difficult if not impossible to answer the metaphorical chicken vs. the egg question. And, that’s just me. I believe that Mystery reigns supreme, and I say this as a realist, though a unique one at that, I am sure. Cheers.
Maybe the naysayers are right. Maybe we should step back and consider Tony, Doug and the others that Julie is demanding an apology from.
How hard and exhausting in must be for them to keep up the facade, to obfuscate and demand, to litigate and denigrate. Have we stopped to consider how hard it is for the abuser? Man, they probably have heartburn from maintaining the web of lies, deceit and character assassination they have to keep perpetrating against Julie.
And don’t even mention the sheer labor that comes with behind the scenes machinations, of attempts to silence and shut down.
It’s hard out here for a narcissist.
Ya Jon, denial works. Actually, messy truth discovery is better than silent concealment. Keep reading. Good fruit is coming from this.
John M. Sweeney: judgemental much?
As far as I can see, no one has been “called out”. Julie McMahon has communicated some actual facts (you know, the type that can be backed up by court records and such) and people have expressed their opinion on the basis of those facts. Perhaps you should take your own advice and butt out.
what’s not true?