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.
1079 comments
Yes, and I have been advised this really is the only sane path. I get where you are coming from completely as a caring person. I think you picked up on my frustration for the inability to provide my kids a “normal” childhood. THAT is the part that pisses me off the very most. How this has and continues to cause them stress and anxiety. Totally unfair but I can’t male unilateral peace and I can only control my side of the street. Divorce sucks! Don’t have kids if cheating is in your DNA or if you’re too weak to face your shand% and deal with life. Amen.
Julie, I didn’t intend to criticise your ability to interact in a civil manner with purple in general. And with the person you describe, such a reaction seems like the only workable option.
(I’m just trying to understand – and I’m pretty sure you get where I’m coming from.)
I have also seen parents use flexibility as a rod to beat each other with many times, so I can acknowledge the practicality of a fixed schedule.
Bill Kinnon. Yes, to the “minion” part. I believe that is what took place with eager minions forwarding emails and creating this united front of silent treatment and the proliferation of the crazy campaign to help in the attack. Scary.
Tim for years…for far too many years I hoped and looked for the good for my kids sake. There was not an ounce of goodwill to be found anywhere. I tried for too long to be civil, to make it “normal.” Every word, every action twisted, spun and taken out of context to try and build the next legal motion. I was video taped and recorded. Set up and lied about.
Not too long ago the depth of the pathology FINALLY sunk in.
I answered my land line home phone and said hello. He said, “Because you just said hello to me…I can have you arrested.” At that moment I can tell you I sensed pure evil. I canceled my land line that day and have not spoken a word to him since. It is evil. He can’t let it go, and the obsession with trying to “get me” scares me.
So, to answer your question….no, this is the best option when dealing with and NPD and when you are the Narcissistic Target. No contact is the peaceful solution. It is the best place for me and my kids. I have neighbors, friends and family who will help if I ever need to somehow vary my schedule, but I have not needed. It is my priority not to. I live my life by that constant schedule and having no contact while parallel parenting for 8 more years.
I imagine a blunt answer may be: “Far, far better than any of the alternatives…”
Julie – re: an ironclad schedule,
I know of parents who have separated and lost the ability to negotiate with each other (or, more likely, it started when they lost the ability to negotiate!)
I think an ironclad schedule would have improved their circumstances considerably – no need to negotiate with each other, and no attempts to control the situation through their children. Just set dates and times. And the cell phones are convenient, too.
However, I wonder how that level of rigidity works in practice.
I am curious, but I completely understand if you don’t want to indulge my curiosity publicly, or at all:
What if the kids don’t want to go?
What if the non-custodial parent can’t, won’t, or just doesn’t arrive?