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
Thanks, David!
Thanks Jane. If you haven’t read “Confessions of a Sociopath” by M.E. Thomas, you should. It’s a fascinating read. We’ve actually corresponded. She’s breaking new ground concerning sociopathy.
When recommending the three books above (Sept-05 post), my intent was to agree, David, with your central idea: the pathology came first, and found a hospitable environment in the theology. My fundamental disagreement with Jones’ original post was the idea that “this could happen to any of us.” No. I could happen to another sociopath. But it isn’t “just anyone” who engages in the level and severity of domination and control that MD engages in.
I have frequently read people comment that MD is a narcissist. I disagree.
I can deal with narcissists. Their core emotional axis is the holy trinity of Me, Myself, and I. A bit exhausting sometimes, but they can be dealt with. I have a sister who’s a narcissist. You have to wade through a lot of self-references, but it’s manageable. Although she lives several states away, I talk to her by phone once a week and we interact on FB frequently.
I can’t deal with sociopaths. Their core emotional axis is power. That’s quite different from that of narcissists. There’s a complete lack of empathy and conscience. Sociopaths make you question your own sanity. When you catch them doing something crazy, you think, “Surely this can’t be happening! Who does that?” Well, sociopaths do that. I also have a sister who is a sociopath. After reading “The Sociopath Next Door” and saying to myself, “OH!!!” a thousand times, I have no contact with her. Haven’t for years. Blocked her from my FB wall.
Driscoll is a sociopath. Full stop. Has some narcissism thrown on top, but the core of his personality is power and domination and the need to step on the throat of anyone who challenges his power. That’s why he not only fired his assistant who said to a friend that “Mark could use someone in his life to go toe-to-toe with him” — he actually accused her of heresy. Heresy. Let that sink in for a moment.
In addition to the three books I recommended above, I’d also recommend “Psychoanalytic Diagnosis” by Nancy McWilliams, Ph.D.
David, thanks for the post. Very needed.
i totally agree with you tru. we’re on the same page.
Don’t foget Driscoll came out of the Young Leadership Network that spawned Emergent Village – if you dissect Jones and Co. cyberbullying as David has done a number of times, you’ll see their teatment of those who dare to differ follows the same lines. Driscoll just had a better head for business and as such, his empire grew. They both picked different theologies on which to base their platform but the underlying psychology is more similar than either might want to to admit.