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
Oh Cecilia… I didn’t mean to say it was inappropriate, but that it needed to be translated to its root meaning. That’s all. I say fuck and shit all the time, but don’t use it in my blog posts because I want to make my understanding as direct as possible without the need of interpretation or translating. But sometimes there are no other words.
There are a countless number of leaders/pastors today who are turning to what their itching ears want to hear (cf. 2 Tim. 4:3). You can easily twist and add to Scripture—so that it says what you want it to. I tend to agree with this: “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.” But as said, we can all fall. Let’s pray for every person and family who were harmed by Driscoll to heal, and also for Driscoll to seek help, come to true repentance, and begin a fresh start with the one and only gospel capable of providing salvation to all who believe. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9).
David, at the time it felt like something that needed to be said, but you are right in calling out its being inappropriate.
The sentiment that I really want to call out is the constant victim-blaming that people like Colina are unintentionally doing to people like Julie. It’s outright ridiculous to boil down something into such a simple matter and, honestly, it looks downright hateful to do so.
David, you are awesome!
This cathartic train wreck of a comment marathon has been for me, in alternating sequence, fascinating, appalling, and inspiring. It brings back lots of memories of things I witnessed and experienced during my decades in related flavors of Christianity. Some of the names are different, some are the same – but the psychology, tactics, and rationale are oh so familiar. Part of the fascinating aspect is that, after many years away from that environment, so much of it pops back like it was yesterday. And that, I think, goes directly to the need for the used and abused and disenfranchised to speak up and tell their stories. If you are unable or unwilling, too afraid or intimidated or self-dismissive to talk about it, vent, dissect, and deal with it openly it will stay with you. It might be pushed down, covered up, dormant. You might consciously have moved on, removed yourself from the environment, be living a completely different life far removed from the cult of personality and manipulative control. But, without speaking openly about it – to yourself and others – it is still there. It may be diminished, it may have lost its power. It may be shadow without substance. But the memory retains more emotional content than it otherwise would. The stories need to be told, messy or not, unpleasant or not. Until it sees the light of day, vestiges (or more) of the rot remain.
Thank you, Kimberly. And YES!