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
Scott,
I called for something less than new creation with “let’s bring charges here”. But this is not a support group, nor does it have the level of public accountability. I’m totally fine with anyone saying whatever they want on forums defacing whomever they want, whenever they want. Perhaps this is a forum that leads to expression better than to truth, love or justice. If we’re concerned with any of the latter, let’s move to forum which could lead to such ends.
How about we dispense with what Christians should do and focus on what we, as humans, should do. It doesn’t matter if you know multiple parties involved. The main party involved is here and she is saying this happened. The VICTIM is saying it happened.
When the high and mighty Tony himself posted in this very thread he didn’t deny anything,. So, how about you stop trying to silence a victim and let her have her say. Don’t try to hide behind the bible, especially since one of the people “directly involved” is saying her piece.
Danica, I’m saying I don’t know the whole truth. But I know multiple parties personally involved. Is there a possibility someone you don’t know is being less than truthful? Is there a possibility, in a fallen world, that someone you do know well has been less than truthful to you? I think awfully difficult conversations like this in a forum that requires no transparency (how do we know any of us is who we are unless we practice some disclosure) and involves kids that will have access to this whole conversation, especially amongst Christians, ought to be marked by caution, prayer, discretion and deliberation. What if we all just ceased the online chatter and talked to people directly involved. Wouldn’t that get us closer to Matthew 18?
No Danica, he’s saying there’s no way to know if she’s lying because internet so we should frown discouragingly until she stops talking about it. Duh.
Scott, you’re saying Julie is lying?