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
… but you know, I’d honestly be defensive, too, if it got out online that I had texted, “hard pressed on me and in me” to a married man.
I honestly think that the ‘immense pain’ is being healed through the comments section of this blog. Julie even said it. She’s been trying to tell her story for years and has been deleted and silenced. I applaud her and encourage her because I applaud and encourage any sister who finds her voice to speak against her abuser.
Colina, you can take your shaming concern trolling and stick it where the sun don’t shine.
any g-d that supports this level of abasement and abuse deserves to be burnt in the fires of molech.
I do not understand the persistent demand that the comments section of a blog is sufficient—can hold—the (voyeuristic?) adjudication (using that word due to the litany of accusations) of what must have been an enormously painful divorce for all parties. Does not divorce occur in part because parties have ruptured and differing interpretations of events, of each other? Obviously these two formerly married people do not share the same interpretation of events. How can any of you claim to know—or even demand—the truth about the truth of what happened in order to then take sides? Unless you know these people intimately and were there, in which case why in hell sift it all out again on a blog?
Julie can demand whatever she damn well pleases — obviously — and doesn’t need any encouragement or validation to do so. Obviously . All respect for her pain. And for Tony’s. I just don’t see how it’s any of the damned business of the people on this forum to demand responses to what you know are complex, deeply emotional, painful events lived out in the intimate lives of others. There is an arrogance at play here that is deeply troubling.
So what came first, the voyeur or the victim trying to work out past shame of having acquiesced and given up their voice in the first place? Take up your voice and sound your barbaric yawps as you wish… good on you… but for the love of God (literally) do you really have to do it by simplistically demanding a new online divorce trial? Do you truly think this immense pain is going to be redeemed or healed within the comments section of this blog? Egad.
Julie,
We are practically neighbors. I live in MN too. If I was standing next to you, I would give you a big {HUG}. You are one strong mama!!!