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
Hi Karl! I’m curious if you were referring to me in your ‘hurling stones’ comment? Could you please elaborate? You don’t think it was a double standard for him to assume David’s motives, but not give David space to assume his own?
If I can chime in as a young Methodist pastor in the Dakotas (who admires you both) I’m really glad David that you’re hopefully coming to see that you and Tony are on the same page more than you perhaps initially realized. As for those still continuing to hurl stones at Tony, please stop. The man eloquently and gracefully called Driscoll out (as he as done so on numerous occasions) while at the same time encouraging people to realize that but by the grace of God, we could all be assholes.
As to the main matter, I’d say that Driscoll’s cruel theology along with other personality issues, resulted in his cruel behavior.
Grace and peace,
Karl
Tony – you said to David, "your post is not a fair reading of my post, but I think you know that "
Then, to David few comments down, you said, “Why David would think I envy him, I do not know — that is a judgment of my inner life, and I don’t believe that David is privy to that”
You take offense to David’s assumption of what your inner life is, but claim to know his? This is exactly what I’m talking about – the world revolves around you, and if you are offended by someone, then it is an issue to be addressed. If you have offended someone, they must be reading you wrong, or mistaken about what you said. Basically, nothing is ever your fault. I cannot think you haven’t had this criticism lobbied against you before?
Also – on toxic theology. While I agree that theology is important, I think you take it too far. I think you elevate ‘right’ theology over everything else, placing it of utmost importance … including, as I’ve observed, the need to treat others with love and respect. You’re a modern day Gnostic.
Go home Tony. You’re drunk.
He needed thrown under a bus a long time ago. I am amazed at people who dance around protecting these folks. It is like they are afraid to admit that they, like the criminal, use same the same bullshit god-talk to meet their agendas. Holy talk needs to be seen for what it is — in all forms!