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
Well done, Todd. May yours be the first of many!
Todd, that’s awesome. Respect.
You rock Todd. As well as the rest of you. :)
Julie, I was a little connected to the EV stuff back in the day. Not a ton, but enough to (loosely) know some of the people involved in this discussion. It was never directly told me to that you are crazy (that I can remember) but it is something that I inferred pretty clearly.
I confess, I’ve repeated that same thing (that you are “crazy”) to at least two people when your marriage/divorce came up in conversations. I’m sorry I did that. I do not know you at all and its not likely that I ever will. It’s completely unfair and wrong of me to perpetuate an idea that I cannot verify, especially something as significant as this. It’s especially awful to share that a person is “crazy” to write them off and thereby justify someone else’s actions or behavior.
I’m not writing this to make myself look good (I tend to think it might be doing the opposite!) but I commit to going to at least one of those people (the one who I am still in contact with and know how to get ahold of) and apologizing for passing on things that I have no actual knowledge of.
In short, sorry for perpetuating an uninformed and harmful narrative and thereby hurting you and your family in the process.
Todd
Colina: My first response towards your last comment is curiosity. After I made it clear that this isn’t about the divorce, you seem to want to pull it back into a he-said-she-said thing. When you say “help me understand how you want this to go”, you seem to think there is an agenda underneath the emotional and intelligent comments. Since when is someone just telling their story an agenda? Since when is telling their truth considered strategic? You know what I mean?
It just seems to me that if Julie were just any other woman telling her story about her divorce from any other man, there would be no issue. There would be tons of sympathy and encouragement to share. More than there already is! But because there are famous people and important ministries at stake, we are being encouraged to tread lightly and cautiously. Am I wrong here?
I do get what you’re saying. There are no intentions to post a retrial. This is new territory of people speaking their truths about what happened mostly around the divorce. I suppose we are more interested, not in the collision itself, but in the factors that lead up to it, the pressures that contained it, and the ramifications that came from it.