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
“Oh Danica, believe me, I have seen it in other places. Non-religious places. Including businesses and universities. Which leads me to suspect that theology isn’t the core issue”
I totally agree. It is just that it is so much more insidious when this stuff is done in the Name of Jesus. Adds many more layers to it.
Thank you for taking the time Mike.
Brother Maynard asked me to share what I remember about any rumors surrounding Tony and Julie’s divorce, and Julie privately messaged me this morning to ask the same thing. As I already said above (and in my private reply to Julie), I have never personally witnessed any campaign by emergent folks to silence Julie or label her as crazy. Though I did have a few brief online and face-to-face interactions about the situation with various people, including some of the folks Julie has named here as participating in a cover-up, I NEVER heard any of them say anything that sounded like they were trying to hide anything, dismiss Julie as mentally unstable, or recruit “minions” to some conspiracy. All I do recall hearing was 1) that Julie and Tony’s marriage had been struggling for a long time, and 2) that people weren’t sure when Tony’s relationship with Courtney had started and whether it was before or after the divorce with Julie.
I did (very briefly) talk to Danielle Shroyer about that last point (years later), and she said then what she also repeated here – that she never saw any romantic behavior between Tony and Courtney prior to the divorce. She didn’t try to smear or label Julie, it didn’t sound like she was covering anything up, and I still have no reason to doubt that she was telling me the truth from her perspective. That’s not to say it didn’t happen, but if Danielle says she personally didn’t see it happening, then I will trust her as much as I trust any one else here – that is to say, until I am given a solid reason not to.
I do recall after receiving Julie’s email (over six years ago now), thinking that she seemed particularly emotionally distressed and I did, at the time, wonder about her motives in emailing a bunch of people she didn’t know about her marital problems, though that didn’t diminish my concern for both her and Tony, and as I said, I did reach out to both of them offering to help. It is possible, however, that I said something to that effect to others who asked me about the situation (I honestly can’t recall anymore), and if that contributed in any way to negative rumors about you, Julie, then I am very truly sorry for that. Please rest assured that I wouldn’t have done so at anyone’s behest and I was never asked to be part of any kind of cover-up or gaslighting campaign.
That’s pretty much all I know about the subject. I was going through a lot of my own life-transitions at the time (new baby, cross-country move, starting grad school) so I didn’t really give the situation a lot of thought. Besides, I’ve always been among those who have experienced the emerging church as a much broader and more decentralized movement than those who think it all revolves a small handful of authors or speakers (and to be honest, the only people I’ve met who think that tend to be the folks who don’t happen to like those particular authors or speakers), so while I was sad to hear about Tony and Julie’s troubles, it didn’t really impact my own involvement much. That is to say, any attempt to cover-up something about the situation would have seemed sort of irrelevant to me since I never really saw the success or failure of the emerging movement as particularly hinging on people like Tony in the first place. For me (as for most of us in the movement I think) it’s always been about ideas and action and communities, not about any particular personalities or so-called “leaders.”
Anyhow, I hope that helps. I really don’t have anything more I can think to share about the subject. Like I’ve said, I didn’t (and still don’t) know much.
Oops, to be clear. My pastor was sitting on the front row in the picture from 1986. Another man on the front row was the author of Drucker and Me.
@Becky. In 1984 a new organization was formed. By 1986 the influences were being felt at the church where I was a member. Though we left for another church in the mid 1990s, it was not until 2000 that I began to connect some dots. This year in promotional materials for a book written by the co-founder of this organization I saw a picture from 1986 of about 33 men who had been picked to be influencers and to bring about change in the mega church world. Sitting on the front row was the man who was my pastor at that time. And the author of the book, Drucker and Me.
It seems to me that Leadership Network has played a significant role in the Xn industrial complex from before the time of the Emergent Church. Becky, have you seen evidence of this earlier influence?
I know of this from the impact in my life for almost 30 years.