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 TRU, WHERE ARE THE WOMEN?? WHERE ARE THEY AT??? WHY WON’T THEY TALLLKKKK TO US??
this felt like the grownups were talking for a while, so i felt like i should not be talking. because i didn’t have much to add.
but then the whole ‘keep things in person’, cropped up.
1. i have done the in-person thing with an abuser, and it never ended well. it ends with me being called crazy, bitter, unrepentant, ung-dly.
so i do not do that anymore.
2. this conversation, this post, they both have value to me for the very real reason that it’s public. no more hiding behind suit and tie, no more hiding behind the scruffy half-beard and smile, no more hiding. it is plain for anyone who cares to admit, that he’s an abuser, and that jones has to some degree identified with him.
when enough time is spent sympathizing, it’s hard to pull away and see what’s really wrong. because in sympathy, kinship is shared. in shared kinship, there are too many sore spots and blind spots.
3. i feel the pull to obey still, to be quiet, to not speak. to let this become a private matter, where men nod and pray. where the shape of my body means that i lack the skills and power to communicate in any effective manner.
but i won’t.
4. i will not peacemake with an abuser. and i will learn trust my own interpretations of what i see, and take whatever steps necessary to expose what i see as wrong. because talking is everyone’s right.
no more hiding behind g-d.
p.s. julie, i’m so sorry for what happened to you. it’s wrong, very very wrong.
Also… I just want to say that Doug’s ignoring of the accusations Julie is leveling against Tony is mindboggling to me. What sort of bullying man’s club do these emergent “leaders” run, to run roughshod over a woman (over ANYONE) like that? And in the name of Christ?
(… and did any of you man-sorts happen to get inboxed with a message for me? Since Doug is private messaging everybody in the interest of ‘personal relationship’, I thought maybe he might have chosen to go through a penis in order to communicate with us xx-chromosomal types?)
@Danica – you’ll notice that Driscoll’s abusiveness and dreadful theology didn’t actually become a wider issue until it started affecting men.
I like that Doug ignored all the women on the thread, including the ones who addressed him directly. Classy dude. Real classy.