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
There are people… leaders… who privately contact me to either manage, control, or stop this conversation. Nakedpastor has never censored comments. I mean, I have interjected now and then to try to inject my point of view as another participant in the conversation. But never to shut it down. Well… I did shut down a couple people who were either extremely misogynistic or Islamophobic or something. But in this case, these are the comments of people who are telling their stories. And my take is that it is mostly challenging a movement and its leaders or representatives. I find it interesting… don’t you?… that the voiceless are speaking here on this post while the “leaders” use back channels. This says something to me.
Nope. Went back and checked. Those emails Julie wrote of – they are real. Sorry. Not my imagination after all.
@Lydia
Thanks for your response..interesting and very helpful! The part about getting everything in writing makes total sense.
Out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks. To me that means theology is a product of the human mind and heart.
Oh, and David, in answer to your original question at the top of the page, I firmly believe it is the thug that creates or adapts the theology. Christ said simply that the two things we have to worry about are loving God with all of our being, and loving our neighbor as ourselves. He said clearly that one could recognize His followers by their love for others. There is nothing remotely resembling any of that in Mark Driscoll’s theology, not the least hint. He wrote his theology to enable his thugery. That, to me, is very plain.