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
*mental and physical abuse
Yup, I just read this entire thread… and this is just another file in the file cabinet of why all religion is useless.
Julie, I’m sorry you (and anyone else who has experienced mental and physical) and your family had to face this type of tragedy.
I’ve grown to hate religion… while struggling to still believe in a god. It’s not going well, and this truth that was exposed certainly is helping me think that the struggle of attempting to believe… isn’t worth it.
Grace and Peace
I’ve attempted numerous times to post here in light of the evolved topic at hand. And, until now, I just haven’t be able to. I keep typing and then deleting everything that I had typed. My heart goes out to Julie, just to make clear where I stand. And at the same time, my heart goes out to abusers, and I think the reason why is because I was severely abused most of my life, and have had to fight the latter 20 years of my life to make damn sure I didn’t become an abuser myself. It’s been very difficult. My heart breaks firstly for the abused, and after, for the abusers. I think I’d rather be abused than become an abuser. I realize there has been an awful lot of justified anger and expression on this thread; still, I’ll risk hitting the “post comment” button in any case. I feel a bit out of sorts here, because I am a white male venturing to risk being vulnerable, and I have zero intent on drawing any attention whatsoever to myself. It’s just that to a difficult degree, and can identify with abusers, with myself suffering a significant degree of abuse and fighting off (and constantly) the urge to become that which virtually ruined my life (though some of it has been “salvaged,” so to speak). Much peace to all here, and if I have offended anyone in any way, it was not my intent to do so. And my aim has not at all been to shift any attention to myself, but simply to raise a voice to be heard, for whatever it may be worth.
That is so true, Brad. No one has the right to label or diagnose anyone else without the process of thorough clinical diagnostic testing. I inquired of the 6, and their credentials and not one of them is a licensed mental health clinician, but Doug said, “We are all Pastors and we work with people all the time, and we just know.” From a remote location without 1 minute of clinical assessment, I was assessed. Unless you have seen a diagnosis written in black and white by a licensed psychologist, no label should ever be uttered. So, I speak because “it is documented and verifiable…”
I’ve been thinking about all the stuff in this thread on stigmatizing someone with a label of “mental illness.”
Lydia speaks above (September 19, 2014 at 9:49 am) about abusive leaders who masquerade as “great men,” which gives them the stature needed to play “The Crazy Card” on people successfully. The thing that’s so insidious is that this “poisons the well” on another person by innuendo or outright labeling, especially if someone’s behavior under stress seems to support the conclusion pronounced against them.
But things are not always what they seem. If I remember right, there are at least 50 different sources that can have symptoms that make someone look like they’re drunk — disoriented, swaying, stumbling, slurred speech. (If that number is off one direction or the other, someone with a medical background please correct me.) One source is diabetes, when the person’s insulin level is way off and they get woozy and can talk incoherently. Another is Parkinson’s Disease, where they’ve lost motor control and stagger. Strokes can have symptoms of slurred speech.
So, just as apparent drunkness is not itself an automatic diagnosis of pathology, “crazy” behavior is not always what it seems. That’s especially true if the “diagnosis” comes from someone in a role of authority over others who benefits by gaslighting his/her victims to think they’re going crazy, or by labeling them as if they are crazy.
Here are some of the Crazy Cards I’ve heard being played (some onto me, others in malignant ministry situations I’ve personally been in):
They’re quite “ill,” if you catch my drift. You’re the most self-centered person I’ve ever known. They’re mentally unstable. There was a “personality conflict.” [Meaning, I’m the calm, sane, rational one, and they’re not.]Labeling is often an effective way for bullies to implant doubts, to discount the truth that is told by others, to reinforce denial in the hearts and minds of their own followers. It is as my favorite philosopher — okay, so it was Dana Carvey — said: “To label me, is to ignore me.”
I have been labeled, ignored, minimized by bullies. I know what it is and how it hurts. I’ve been where it makes me want to yell my story louder so, hopefully, someone finally hears it — which unfortunately only reinforces the false perception that I’m crazy. “See how angry and irrational he is?” Or, “Look out — stay away from that one!” Or, “The next church you go to, I’ll be warning the elders there about you.”
So, when it comes to dealing with issues regarding supposed “mental illness,” I’ve learned that it’s best to proceed with caution. I make observations, consider patterns, and if/when I speak of it, I try to do so tentatively: “It looks like they do obsessive compulsive things.” Or, “They seem overly wrapped up in themselves and have no conscience about hurting others, so it could be they’re dealing with narcissism.” Or, “IMO, that showed a complete lack of compassion!”
That’s because I don’t have the credentials to diagnose — even if I have credibility from a track record of noting patterns of problems. Becky Garrison makes an excellent point about this in her comment (September 12, 2014 at 1:31 pm).
Anyway, I talk tentatively unless I can verify that there is a clear diagnosis of mental health issues, reached by a professional (e.g., psychologist, psychiatrist), who is qualified/certified to make such evaluations and draw such conclusions. And even when there is substantial objective evidence to go with the subjective observations and interpretations of myself and others, I refrain from talking about it unless there is a need for me to say something specific.
Even then, I’m still cautious when speaking about such problems — or about much of anything related to spiritual abuse, actually. But if need be, when there is reliable evidence to back it up, I use the sentence-starter-line that I crafted a few years ago to put questioners and challengers on notice that we’re dealing with evidence, not mere opinion. It goes like this (and has saved me from flame-war exchanges numerous times): “It is documented and verifiable by witnesses that …”
And from what Julie has shared in this thread, it looks like there may be a lot of clinical evidence available in this situation.