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
Julie, like I said… letting it go and wishing you and your kids all healing and comfort.
Colina: You say “I don’t want to detract or distract from that inertia”. I disagree that it is inertia. Actually, if you stay tuned, you will see how this will actually help people, clarify the situation, and even hopefully produce the fruit of repentance. I’ve seen it too many times to call the raising our voices inert.
David — because it’s seems disingenuous (to me at least) to say that this isn’t about a divorce when the entire narrative context is in fact about a divorce. There are accusations of EV leaders deleting emails and blog comments in the past, etc.. but the context/juice of this thread are pain-filled anecdotes from Julie’s experience of her divorce used to accuse EV leaders of abuse. Sure there are larger themes people are trying to make, but they are making it primarily off of Julie’s narrative, using it as evidence for proving a larger point about the corruption of EV leaders.
There does seem to me to be an agenda. To take the content of Julie’s story around her divorce and use it to directly or inferentially accuse EV leaders as being complicit in extraordinary abuse — even to the point of physical harm and trying to have her institutionalized — all so they could keep their speaking and publishing careers intact.
Am I wrong? Is this hyperbole? Is something else being suggested?
I am not saying tread w/ humility because there are “famous” people here. These people aren’t famous. I mean maybe within their own publishing/speaking ghettos, but it’s a small number comparatively speaking.
I am saying tread with humility because these are extraordinary accusations to make of anyone. Our entire justice system in based on the premise that guilt should not be assumed simply because someone makes an accusation on an internet blog. And that premise seems wise to me, to protect all of us. And the substance of that premise is NOT dismissive of Julie’s story. I know of lives destroyed because of false sexual abuse charges made. And more to the point, we all know of lives destroyed because of accurate abuse charges made.
Meaning, if you’re going to use Julie’s divorce stories to accuse EV leaders as being corrupt abusers, then wouldn’t you want to get to the hard, naked truth of it? And can you really do that without talking to Tony et al, or without their participating on this blog, without hearing their story? And lo, they’ve declined, and lo, it is just lazy — intellectually and morally — to then say their silence proves the accusation. When they may be silent for a myriad of reasons. As I said, I have no idea about them. No connections. But this is an extraordinary conversation about incredible accusations — is it really wrong to say tread with humility and care?
Lastly, look. It could very well be that the rallying of encouragement and affirmation for Julie is a sacred, holy thing and more important than anything on this blog. And if so, I don’t want to detract or distract from that inertia. Not trying to be a fly in the soup. But humility, mercy, poking at the question of whether a blog forum can really serve as a place for such intimate pain and extraordinary accusations of abuse… especially when, again, parties are apparently asking for direct, private conversation… just doesn’t seem all that outrageous to offer as thoughts to the conversation. I’ll let it go having said my peace.
@Todd Hiestand, thanks for your vulnerability and courage in sharing your apology.
I’m in the middle of finishing a blog series about responsibility, culpability, and complicity when it comes to spiritual abuse. My last post deals with what I had to realize about my responsibility toward brothers and sisters in Christ because my own actions within situations that turned out to be spiritual abusive hurt them as well. So I get how it is grievous to deal with, but freeing, like Brother Maynard talked about earlier in this thread (September 17, 2014 at 12:05 pm, paragraph 5).
Hope and pray that contact you’ll be making will bring light and no unnecessary heat.
Todd…Thanks, that was well done and so important.