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
Hi, David. Regarding the comment you made on September 12 about noticing the pathologies outside a church setting—the first place I encountered narcissistic personality was in a one-two punch in the form of a self-professed feminist, Roman Catholic department chair. She was truly terrifying in her ability to manipulate individuals—students, her colleagues, and her peers within her subject area. She was almost revealed in a devastating way when the accreditation board came around for its routine 10-year evaluation, but she threatened students verbally and there was an exodus of the most vocal students at the close of that academic year. She managed to prevent individuals from getting tenure (and fired others outright) if their own academic subspecialties drew more positive attention, grants, money, and attendance than hers. Universities are prime breeding and grooming grounds for these sorts of pathologies. Despite my own love for research, I never wanted to teach after watching what happened. I also spoke out and my reward was clinical depression while sticking it out the remaining academic year to get my undergrad degree.
Annie, a “spiritual wife” you use because she is much cooler than you, and has tattooed arm sleeves, dread locks, and an air of androgyny to give you street cred with the GLBT community that you have just now decided (and since it has now become mainstream) to reinvent your platform upon. You do this in desperation to be relevant again. Also, a “spiritual wife” you don’t have to pay alimony when she is no longer useful.
A “legal wife” you take back to court 12 times feigning financial destitution and try over and over and over not to pay child support. I hope that clears that up for you.
But then there is also the “polymorous” wife and that means you do whatever the hell you want, and with multiple partners and genders and there is no consequences…except maybe a pesky STD. There was an Emergent whackadoo blog post about being “GGG with your partner: good, giving and game.” Pretty sure that is tucked away in the back of the gospel of John. I think that’s the “generous orthodoxy” they talked about (snicker). I tuned out way back when it went “cult speak” with the “legal wife” and “spiritual wife” crap.
Circling back to the original post here….there is no difference between this, and Mars Hill except they could choose to be bigger and better than Mark Driscoll and admit fault, apologize and reconcile….isn’t that what we are called to do? That’s the only Christianity I can stomach. Where is it?! WHERE IS THE CONVERSATION? Brian McLaren told me, “Never email me again.” I guess he was all “discerned out.”
I’ve received one apology from one of the six in the past six years. I would like an apology from the other five on the “Discernment Team,” Danielle Shroyer, Mike King, Brian McLaren, Brad Cecil, Doug Pagitt. I will fully embrace your apology, but an apology is required here and now. This is the appropriate venue and maybe Mark Driscoll may even be inspired! I know “he who shall not be named” literally would and will choke and die before admitting or apologizing to an iota of what occurred, but you others? Do you walk the talk? Or, no? John Hubanks thank you for that eloquent and succinct recap. Hilarious comment about, “Pass the popcorn.” If memories are fuzzy I can post the Discernment Letter instructing me to check into a mental hospital if I want to save my marriage. Would that help? All your names are on it in black and white. It’s time….let’s walk the talk.
@Shade – please keep speaking your truth for as long as it feels right to you to do so. It needs to be heard.
I can’t ever speak for the abused, and I appreciate your and Julie’s courage in speaking out.
Annie,
Great question! I think maybe a “legal wife” is entitled to alimony in the event of a divorce, but a “spiritual wife” is not. That or a spiritual wife is the one with the marital trump card in polygamous or polyamorous scenarios. I could be wrong about that though, or have it all backwards. I couldn’t find the term in my concordance, so I can only guess.
John,
You make some good observations about communicating in print. Maybe I’m just comfortable with it, having done so online for 15 years now but I have to recognize that this new form of communication must be used with extreme caution given the literacy rate. Or something. Maybe I’ve been misunderstood all this time and I never noticed, but I don’t think I’ve had that much difficulty saying what I mean. Maybe it’s because I’m a professional author and writer that I can express myself so clearly. Oh, wait. That can’t be right.
Shutting down conversation is a gaslighting tactic, as well as one which promotes darkness and obscurity around the facts, and is often employed by those who don’t have any interest in the discussion being public, like Mark Driscoll blaming the internet. (“Damn internet, spreading facts at the speed of light! Who can counter that?!”) I know this because it’s pretty consistent in my observation during the past 15 years of how this plays out online. You know, because this kind of conversation is so new to inexperienced writers/readers.
ttm,
Belittling the question or the questioner and trying to shut them up is a form of spiritual abuse when it’s done in a religious context or for supposedly religious reasons by someone in a position of authority. Just sayin’… I’ve seen a lot of that elsewhere in my time too.
@tru — I have also taken note of that fact. The dudebro elders at MH who issued their letter calling for Driscoll’s resignation, and who are now being so widely hailed for their courage and integrity as a result, were perfectly happy teaching his preferred form of misogynistic theology until it began to threaten their jobs. So one is left wondering what, exactly,they’ve done to be courageous in attempting to save their own skins.
While Pagitt and Jones (among others) aren’t nearly so blatant in their disregard for women, it’s on display for any who care to see it whenever they make appearances on these sorts of threads. When they deign to reply to a woman, which is itself far more rare than their replying to men who issue identical challenges, it almost invariably is for the purposes of condescension and dismissal. Unless you happen to be Rachel Held Evans, and you words things very, very carefully.