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
Hey David, I am not saying that blogs are bad, what I was saying was that they are not the best way to convey our meaning and that this causes all kinds of misunderstanding. I am all for the truth being exposed and people sharing their views, I think you and I know each other well enough that you know I am not interested in shutting anyone out or down.
My point is, and it seems obvious in even my small interaction here, that this format, when void of interpersonal interaction and with all communication being done in public, is not the best way to convey our meaning. And often people’s feelings get hurt and the conversation strays from this crucial issues to something else (like, “you know that is not what I meant” or “obviously….”
What I suggest is that people spend time, whenever possible, in contact with each other before making public what they think about another persons ideas.
I know that is not always possible as many people don’t have access to each other, and I am not saying to seek the persons permission and thereby be shut down, I am saying that when possible to give the benefit of the doubt to the person and to talk with them or correspond with them directly.
To transcend blogging to me means using blogging as a tool, but not the only tool. To be in contact with people whenever possible.
In this case I know you and have spent time with you in Haiti, have had you on my radio show and think very highly of you. And I know Tony very well. I also know others in the thread and I know that it is quite simple and possible to have access to each other interpersonally.
So, when time is spent suggesting what people meant, or people being accused of this or that, and that could be solved by a private conversation or message, it only seems wise as then the important issues can be gotten to.
I am not saying that people should not share their perspectives and their challenges, I am saying that we are better off if what is being shared is as accurate and generous as possible.
A few years ago when people were writing books critiquing what many of us were trying to do with our churches, I would regularly contact these folks and invite them to come and spend some time with our community or stay at my house and we could talk about all their concerns. Or, if that was too much we could talk on the phone or even email bak and forth. Almost to a person they said no. I was told that is not how it works, one author told me “I know what you think from your writing and now I will say what I think.”
I am sure there are better ways. I am all for people sharing, but let’s spend the same significant time, when possible, talking with each other and not about each other so we can let the goodness roll.
Hi Bill, I actually social media messaged you today on facebook, and I am all for this conversation happening. I will post more on my thoughts in just a second, I sent them a head of time to David to get his input (that is one of the things i like to do when commenting on blogs so it takes a little longer to post sometimes).
But please check my message on FB or give me a call 612.730.7337
Hey Doug (Pagitt),
As you represent yourself as a social media expert, I would expect you’d appreciate the conversation taking place here, rather than attempting to chat about this via Facebook Messenger. Feel free to ask me your questions here in the comments. I will do my very best to respond to them.
Poor Emergents:
Evangelicals attack them as apostates.
Liberals attack them for this history.
I can never tell which of the commentors are the former.
Is “emergent” a brand name? I use to assumed it was just another name for “liberal” protestant or “progressive”. But is seems it is a connect group.
Curious?
Wow. Interesting.