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
Scot McKnight: I agree. There are abuses in all theological expressions, as well as good things.
FYI – re spiritual/legal wife – I would not equate this with polyamory as this relationship structure has been explained to me by people in sex positive cultures. A key component here is mutual relationships build on consent by all parities. I’m not interested in using this space to sidetrack the discussion into this arena but simply noting that this teaching is seen as an out of sync with even the most liberal teachings on the topic.
And lest anyone think this scenario is limited to Julie, it isn’t – similar (though not as extreme) methods of gaslighting, shaming, dismissing, etc. have been applied to anyone who challenges the holy hipster male missional crew albeit Mars Hill, Outlaw Preacher, Emergent Village, etc.
And while the focus has been placed on why Doug remains silent, don’t forget that EVERY published US emergent author knew about this pattern and not only stood by silently, but defended Tony by participating in his projects, agreeing to speak at his conferences, endorsing his books and the like.
Very telling that all this is coming to a head and crumbling …
All that and I am still snickering at John’s summary.
For the record…both the male and the female “pastors” from my former church have issues with apologies, admitting errors and brushing things under the rug by “biblical” based attacks to the character of the accusers, along with shunning. Sound familiar? They adore MH. All of these mega-emergent-seeker craps, I mean chaps, teach each other their tricks. Blech.
Holy Mary, Mother of God. So many thoughts – none important except this – you women here, standing tall and speaking truth to power, well done. The men standing tall as encouragers and truth tellers of their own right – well done. I think I might have stayed around had this fervor reached this particular pitch a couple of years ago. As it stands, I removed myself from the equation entirely a couple of years ago. I am now so glad I did. My perspective of the “leadership” and their display (or lack thereof) and the unwillingness to be true to themselves – nevermind the flock – is disheartening and sadly unsurprising. However, the voices! The callouts! What a breath of fresh air and hope.
David – very courageous to host this conversation and to challenge what so obviously needs to be challenged. You are the bees knees.
Picking up on what Linda said a few comments ago, about how failure to resolve prolongs the pain …
Initially, I was caught off guard that this thread turned into being about public figures from Emergent Village who gained some degree of national-level prominence coming out of the “emerging church” movement. But my surprise dissipated. Some critical disputes revealed here came up before. Had those situations been addressed more directly the last time they erupted, they might not even be under discussion now or maybe wouldn’t seem so volatile for the recipients of Julie McMahon’s pointed narrative and challenges.
As best I can remember, much of this same information of Julie’s account about apparently very destructive behaviors and enablement by certain individuals within Emergent Village was online around four years ago — late 2009, early 2010. But that time it was in bits and pieces, scattered across various blogs in both posts and comments, over a period of months. And then it seemed to disappear before there was any indication of resolution.
I recall there was a lot of what I could only interpret as shut-up type push-back and protection like, “You don’t know my life!” and “Why are you doing this to him?” and “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” And there was also a lot of silence in response to legitimate questions raised about people who have put themselves in the public spotlight, questions about their behaviors and their qualifications to be seen as “leaders.” And there was a flurry in deletion of comments, and edits in posts, and attempts to capture or summarize details before they disappeared. And apparently a lot was going on behind the scenes, though from the various tidbit trails left, I wonder how much (if any) of it could be considered “Christian diplomacy.”
So here it is, four-plus years later. This time, much of the case is all in one place, which lets it be more concise and coherent. And Julie, I’m glad you’ve had this opportunity to expand your thoughts and be more specific — and also that this time, thankfully, you’ve not been deleted, nor so denigrated and gaslighted and marginalized like last time. Who knows, perhaps you’ll receive direct and public responses from those who’ve been unkind to you or worse, either in person, behind the scenes, or in the blogs. Regardless, I’m thankful you’re having your say, sharing your story of spiritual abuse and survival, and advocating for light to shine into the dark.
And thank you, David Hayward, for hosting this uncomfortable but crucial conversation. You’re offering an opportunity for, as Linda said, “humility and transparency” in the here-and-now that could’ve and should’ve been entered into lo, those many years ago. This gives me more hope about other historically dark situations coming into the light.