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
For what it’s worth on the importance of this thread and the sharing of Julie’s narrative accounts … As for me, I’m all about context and consequences, not about the intricacies or intimacies of a telenovela as providing a source of gossip for those thrive on romance, malignancy, and malice.
No, this is not about a divorce per se — never was — or ping-pong statements to figure out who owns more culpability in the demise of a relationship. Or about protecting the children from online information, when, according to Julie’s accounts, they have already been eye-witnesses to numerous key incidents of evil.
I would suggest that it is at the core about the intertwining of pathology and theology, and so is on-topic for the original focus of the post. Unexpectedly, it moved to a parallel public situation that comes from the opposite end of the “emerging” lake out of which Mark Driscoll’s version of New Calvinism originated.
Ultimately, this was (when I first followed these same incidents and patterns in 2009-2010) and is now all about issues of duplicity. It was and is about personal character issues of public figures, when their actions end up in widely reported behaviors that affect the Body of Christ in detrimental ways. It was and is about what hypocrisy does to the name of Christ, both in the Church and in the community.
It is like Ted Haggard preaching vehemently against homosexuality and working at the political level to carry out what he considers policies for national righteousness. And then we find out that this has been one of his own moral issues all along.
It is like C.J. Mahaney and other high-up leaders in the Sovereign Grace Ministries movement denying for decades accusations of culpability for not responding to known/suspected child sexual abuse within their churches. And then in the trial of now-convicted pedophile Nathan Morales, Grant Layman — another high-up, long-time SGM leader — testified under oath that he believed he was obligated to report Morales to police authorities, but did not.
It is like Bill Gothard talking about “umbrellas of protection” to shield from harm those within your realm of authority (e.g., church/ministry leaders over flocks, fathers over wives and families and single adult daughters). And then we find out there is testimony after personal testimony exposing his sexual harassment of young women who served at his ministry headquarters, under his authority, for 30+ years.
It is like Mark Driscoll being paraded around for nearly 20 years as controversial and edgy and prophetic and flamboyant. And then the record of things he has continually said and done seem to repeatedly demonstrate his base contempt for people, uncontrollable anger, spirit of violence, and inflammatory language.
And now what is emerging involves key public figures from Emergent Village and its theological and organizational spin-offs that all supposedly promote women as peers to men, and they hail C21/Christianity 21 which let some women of consequence release their voices, and they cheer on celebrity female authors and speakers who hold their views …
… and we then find out publicly from Julie McMahon ex-Jones in her online comments in 2009, 2010, and 2014 that at the same time those seemingly good things were happening, apparently she was enduring emotional and verbal and physical and spiritual abuse.
… and also there was apparently marital infidelity, theologically justified by The Doctrine of Spiritual Wives versus Legal Wife, and gaslighting of Julie and labeling her as “crazy” apparently as a way to blamer her as the cause of the divorce.
… and there was mostly silence in public by the EV celebrities involved, though enough blips of evidence of their views from themselves and others associated with Emergent Village, plus documentation of their appeals in private to delete, edit, direct, control, shame.
And so, from my own studies of online evidences then and now, I think I can legitimately wonder what other unjust actions may have gone on behind the scenes to hide what I can only interpret as misogynistic, self-serving, perpetrator-protecting behaviors under a guise of generosity, goodness, and light. Shouldn’t such allegations deserve to be researched and documented, verified by witness testimonies, and exposed to the light? Hopefully under the sun they will be bleached into oblivion and those who perpetrated and/or perpetuated such damages to others can clear their conscience and move forward in their true identity as siblings in Christ.
I myself am a survivor of multiple incidents of spiritual abuse by leaders in a range of evangelical, moderate, conservative, and fundamentalist churches and parachurch settings over the past 40 years. For the past seven years I have written extensively on indicators of malignant ministers and toxic organizational systems, principles and practices for personal recovery from traumatizing abuse of spiritual authority, and constructive system solutions for dealing with destructive organizations.
My own most basic conclusion is this: I believe that men and women who put themselves forth as public thought leaders and therefore as personal role models within any Christian church, ministry, or movement obligate themselves to be held accountable for their character as demonstrated through actions — IRL and virtual. They are the equivalent of elders, whether acclaimed by others in a church or ministry, or self-proclaimed through publications, speaking engagements, and ministry positions. Hence, 1 Timothy 5:20 applies: “But those elders who are sinning you are to reprove before everyone, so that the others may take warning” (NIV).
And that is why, for me, I’m all about context and consequences, and open-air discussion so there can be, hopefully, redemption and restoration.
A certain level of involvement by EV leaders in the “discernment” meeting and letter is easily verifiable. When would it NOT be spiritually abusive for leaders of a national christian organization to exercise that level of interference in the “intimate agony of a divorce”?
Defending one’s position is not the only valid option at this point, particularly for the called out ones.
Todd, I appreciate your example of transparent humility.
Momentum.
Colina: what word did you mean then? I’m interested. It makes a difference to your point.
David, apologies. Inertia was the wrong word. Nevertheless, you get I think my point.