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
My dad’s borderline narcissistic, and my grandfather and uncles are full on. This feels SO familiar to me.
Maybe that’s a piece to the puzzle in answering your question, David? The theology prolly didn’t start out that way, but since religion allows a person to elevate their narcissistic image, and also change it as people lose interest, I can see how claiming to speak for God would allow a narcissist safe haven to grown their own particular empire. While a person who does not have NPD would simply quietly do the Lord’s work.
What would be interesting to me, would be to look at abusive church leaders throughout history and across denominations (including Catholic), and see if there it’s a constant there. If the constant is that they all subscribe to a particular theology, then wet could safely assume the theology probably came first. But if the constant is that they all have some sort of pathology (and my guess going into it would be NPD), then we would be able to draw the conclusion that the thug came first.
I guess, as I’m sorting through this all now with a full cup of coffee in me, that your focus may be to narrow, David. Broaden your spyglass and see if you can spot this in other places.
And to Julie – I’m so sorry that happened to you. I’m sorry Young Methodist Pastor hasn’t showed up with this love he keeps talking about, to address what you’re saying about his idol. I want you to know I hear you and I am holding your story. I hope you’re finding what peace and stability is possible when having a narcissist impossibly entwined in you life.
Thank you, David.
I agree Julie. The real body of concern is the pathology. Religion is the cloak.
in this case, their is such a hypocrisy, I could vomit. not your article….the others. calling out another ones “bad behavior” while behaving badly, is quite ironic. the only difference is one got away with it. It’s narcissism in many cases, and the church is just the vehicle to feed their megalomania. they NEED an audience, a following, constituents, massive amounts of daily attention. there is a reason disproportionate amount of narcissist are politicians, authors and pastors! mark actually HAD a large and influential platform, thus greater the fall. “admiration and envy?” oh, yes!! you didn’t come across too blunt at all. you hit it. I don’t know nor care about the details of Mars Hill, but I think it’s pathetic for some to stand around and comment on the failings, while cowardly never admitting your own sh*and (which is strikingly familiar!!) misogyny, mental and emotional abuse all hidden behind a new found liberalism and feminism because the times they are a changin’, jumping on the same sex marriage band wagon because its the hot new ride in town, and you just might get to be relevant again…these people are very cunning and smart and they will use anything (theology, controversy, sensationalism) and anyone to get ahead. it’s a clinical diagnosis and a pathology that looks like this kind of carnage, and they ALWAYS leave bodies in their wake. soliciting white male leaders of the emergent church willing to cover it all up for their crony. wipe out evidence on organizations website. lies and betrayal. it’s all in there. the only difference here is…who cares?! because it is so non influential with only a fraction of the followers as Mars Hill (envy). the ev leadership had only a small drop, instead of Mark’s enormous free fall from a very, very high place. my point….shut the f*andk up about another persons “bad behavior” when you treat woman the exact same way and have a very, very similar personality disorder….narcissistic personality disorder. the church is just the vehicle they use to feed their narcissism. they ARE god and what they have to say is so, so very important. not. it’s an untreated mental illness and when left untreated, (and with all of the talent and charisma mark has)…it going to eventually look like that, when survivors have had enough. marriages end in flames…to quote Katy Perry, “This is how they do.”
Julie: Sorry if I came across as blunt. What I mean by my last comment isn’t meant to be unkind. I think we human beings are very complex. My post suggested that Tony Jones might admire Mark. Nothing wrong with that. I asked if he might be envious. Nothing wrong with that. Why? Because Driscoll has admirable and enviable qualities. Jones himself suggested that. What we are concerned about in this post is, is it theology that produced the fruit of abuse? Or, is it an abusive tendency in Driscoll that found a suitable theology to support it? Jones should ask himself that. I should ask myself that. Until we really grapple with this question we will continue to see it in the churches.