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
Motivating people using god-talk is wrong at its core.
Driscoll and Tony are just examples of it.
ISIS is a far worse example.
When will we see through this manipulation.
Instead, people continue to use the same rhetoric to solve the rhetoric. Duh!
What I resent (yes, resent) is that Tony blames all criticism on the person criticizing. He says that those who have something negative to say about him aren’t ‘reading me in the spirit I intended’.
Also, Karl never addressed the double standard I pointed out.
Who here said he was a monster in every area of his life?
when my husband left for a 28 year old in the emergent movement it was Mark Driscoll that sent us money for groceries and prayed for us. I know a very different Mark.
Full marks to David for at least addressing the women in this comment thread as peers, even as he disagrees. Tony, on the other hand, has returned to business as usual after his internet sabbatical. One is forced to wonder if he spent a bit too much time shooting skeet in preparation for his next hunt while ignoring the more pressing matter of how he responds to those he deems beneath him, especially women. After that metaphorical head pat for Danica, one is forced to conclude that whatever reflection he may have given the latter has been quickly abandoned in favor of reflexive denial of any shortcomings on his part. Karl, it would seem, is eager to emulate such smugness in dismissing challenges to preferred conclusions. But enough about inner lives and the need for the absence of grace in order to be an asshole.
Driscoll is a rather easy target. His brashness and stunning arrogance are the equivalent of the storybook villain twirling his mustache. Tony is harder to pin down. Adept at fitting in and playing to an overly credulous audience, he often sings the same tune as Driscoll, but he’s clever enough to change the words. Thinking his work is all done, he bristles at the suggestion that the problem is the tune itself, not simply the words one chooses to accompany it. Until Tony changes melodies, not much else matters.