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 then i wish there was such a thing jen! ;)
I meant individual comments. :)~ But I liked your FB too.
There is some glitching going on because I’m switching servers. No comments are being deleted. Promise. They’re all still there and will reappear in due time.
Before anyone gets concerned, Wordpress is GLITCHING. I do not believe there is intentional “disappearing” of comments going on.
Excellent response, David. What you describe with private intimidation tactics to combat public assertions is the same as what happened the last time this came out publicly around 2010 or so. A number of folks (myself included) either said things or had comments appear on their blogs that called out Tony for his behavior, only for the blog owner to be subjected to intimidation tactics from Tony and other EV leaders. Some of us edited posts or pulled back on the challenge. I’m sorry to have done that — at the time it was all still fresh with court proceedings pending, so letting it drop seemed wise back then. I’m not sure if it was or not, but if it was the wrong thing then I’m sorry for not pressing the issue harder at the time. One small mercy, I suppose, is that Tony and Julie’s children are older and perhaps better able to process it… this must have been pretty tough on a preschool kid. (Oh, the irony, oh, the hypocrisy.)
What’s important in this forum is that the tactic of silencing the victim or those who call out abuse is an established pattern here, and David’s comment above confirms that the pattern is ongoing. If it’s lost any force since then, I’d suggest that’s only because EV is a much smaller and less influential animal now than then.
This is also illustrative of the parallel between Mark Driscoll / Mars Hill and Tony Jones / Emergent Village (and why the segue on this post). Tony wasn’t so much the Grand Poo-Bah of EV, but his misdeeds were covered the same way as Mark Driscoll’s were at Mars Hill. The difference with Mars Hill is that Mark started throwing more people under the bus sooner, until his co-conspirators were a small group of men he could control. The tactics were much the same. With EV, the group was larger, so you’d think the conspiracy was weaker, which is where the parallel causes one to wonder if EV itself wasn’t thrown under the bus in favor of JoPa to help cover what happened here, but at the moment that might be a bit speculative.
Remember that the people engaged in the coverup had a financial interest to do so — especially Doug, having become Tony’s partner in JoPa, but also those with existing or pending book deals. The other leaders had an interest in covering it up for different reasons… they were rewarded with status and approval from the big guns in EV at the time. Some of those leaders made efforts to shame the bloggers at the time, but when pressed, they had no more personal knowledge of the situation than any other outsider, just the say-so of a more well-known EV leader.
These leaders are the people I would want to call on now to own up to what happened… if they spoke out in favor of Tony, Doug, et al without direct personal knowledge, they were just spreading the hearsay of the abusers. I have great sympathy for these leaders, who acted in the pattern they were shown. I came out of an abusive church situation, and very close after the realization that I’d been spiritually abused came the realization that as a leader in that system, I too had been a spiritual abuser, repeating the pattern that had been taught to me. My own grief over the latter realization was greater than over the former… but one has to acknowledge it, right what they can, and move on. Withdrawing support now for what went on in EV then would be an important way of doing this.
And David is completely correct in his statement that this is not about a divorce… it’s about the coverup, and per the title of this post, it’s about the theological justification for sin. “Spiritual Wife”? (Give me a break!) Doug used the term in a comment above, indicating they’re still sticking with that nonsense. Even though EV has considerably less influence now than Mars Hill, the fact that the system continues with the same leaders in place using the same patterns means that others are being abused spiritually at the very least. This is the reason why it has to stop at Mars Hill, and the reason why it has to stop where any of the unrepentant EV leaders are attempting to continue ministry.