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
:)
@David: your point 3 perfectly sums up what I’ve been trying to get at in my last few comments. Excellently stated!
Well I’m going to be the 1,000th commenter. I’m amazed at the quality of this conversation, which points to the quality of those involved. Even where there is disagreement and conflict, included with emotion, they have, for the most part, turned out well.
I’m glad that this has become known as a space for the silenced to speak out and speak up without fear. My hope is that more and more communities providing this basic privilege and right will emerge.
It is remarkable to me that most of those who try to silence have been men, while most of the silenced have been women.
I think we can take a huge lesson from this conversation.
For me, this is what I’ve learned so far:
1. I hope that those from all sides of this incredible story will come to an agreement that each individual person is more important than any reputation, ministry or movement.
2. If we cannot love the least of these then we cannot love the world. If we cannot change our own hearts then we cannot hope to change the hearts of others.
3. The gravitational pull of all organizations, gatherings and movements is towards the dehumanization of people. We must practice diligence at every moment to ensure this doesn’t happen.
Thanks everyone!
@Becky and Julie: I hear you, and I don’t disagree.
I guess I’m also trying to account for how similar patterns get played out on a much, much smaller scale in local churches the world over. I don’t think every pastor who succumbs to abuse of power on a relatively small scale is a clinical narcissist; and yet I do see very similar behaviour patterns playing out, albeit on a much smaller scale.
@RobGrayson My observation interviewing most of the US emergent players from 2000-2007 and those who knew Driscoll in the early days concur with Julie’s assessment. Therein lies a major disconnect – those who were there in the beginning often cilng to the memories of the good old days and don’t realize how the glare of the media spotlight made them massive goldfish in an itty-bitty bowl. Having said that, there ae signs some sought the spotlight (those with narcissistic tendencies which describes EVERY US emergent figure on the stage today) and those who decided to keep it grassroots-y and real (those who were part of the global scene and did’t move to the US fit this bill). IOW – these guys were addicts seeking a fame fix and the Xn industrial complex was the pusher.