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
It’s so interesting to hear how this is framed, given that I’ve always thought Tony erred on the side of being heavy-handed toward Mark (and anyone he saw as abusive etc.). For me, it was a showing of considerable grace when Tony chose to pause his previous criticisms and piece together a response that extended some humanity to someone who has clearly been called out—by Tony multiple times and now, it seems, by all of Christianity.
I stand in solidarity with victims. While doing so, I am reminded that the message of the faith is not an ideal story about an ideal people. That from the beginning, the Bible was always been about brothers who killed each other, and humankind turning on itself ’til it grieved the heart of God. I think the fact that there is an over-arching, enduring covenant that somehow reaches out in the mess, both standing with and healing the victims AND extending opportunity for growing to the grossest offender, gets at the exact kind of mercy that will most right the world.
In my mind, Tony’s post pointed to that. I was surprised to read this take.
Well said Danica.
And Shade… you’re right on there!
which came first?
i will say that man came first, because it’s evident that theology comes from the minds of men. the problem is that it’s elevated to deific proportions after it becomes theology.
so i would say a man-shaped person is dangerous for finding that which will allow him to be more abusive, but the theology is very very suspect and needs to be taken apart as well.
and no, ‘there but for the grace of g-d go i’…. absolutely not. i know for a fact that i am not abusive, nor have i ever been tempted to stray in that direction.
don’t cast the sin on everyone in an effort to diminish the import of what has happened.
The danger I see in elevating theology to such importance, is that it then elevates human reasoning and intellect to a level that it really should not be at. Knowledge puffs up. And when someone approaches the table with the attitude of having the ‘best’ or ‘most sound’ theology, it effectively silences all other voices, marginalizes those who disagree, and shames the ones who can’t keep up intellectually. Mark Driscoll did this. And I feel that Tony does it as well. In this, they are similar (am I throwing stones, Karl?)
I am reminded of when Paul warned the churches about people who would come in and attempt to deceive them with “empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ” … theologians’ worship of their own intellect and their own theologies is, I feel, a modern day application here.
Karl: I don’t feel the need to be on the same page with Tony. I’m detecting the evangelical obsession with agreement that I don’t buy into. And you claim to fall on Tony’s side of the argument, that as long as your theology is correct you’re going to be fine. That’s what I hold as suspicious. I don’t believe cruel behavior is the result of theology and other issues. I think we are nose-deep in the complexities of our own pathologies, and theology is only a small part. And is this small part the cause or the justifying ideology? That’s my question.