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
He’s not dead yet, never mind buried. :P
Well, I don’t know what came first, but they make a combustible mix. When I was in the same circles with Mark, he definitely intimidated me. I wouldn’t say he bullied me, per se, especially out of respect for those he did bully. But I knew that I never wanted to cross him
While I agree that many versions of theology produce bullies, I think there’s enough evidence to support a claim that conservative Calvinism particularly lends itself to misogyny and homophobia.
Finally, my favorite theologian, Jürgen Moltmann, taught me long ago that Jesus died for both the victims and the victimizers. So, rather than dance on Mark’s grave, I pray for him and all those who follow(ed) him to find a more gentle, loving version of God.
Tony: If I am wrong to read in your post that you have admired Mark, then I apologize for that. There’s nothing wrong with admiring someone for something. I’m sure there were some things about him you didn’t admire. But I seemed to detect some admiration for him in your post. His intelligence, for example. And I never said you envy him, but said “maybe” you did. That is not an accusation, but a question. Again, for one man to envy another man for his accomplishments is normal. It wasn’t really a judgment call. There are some things about Mark I’m sure are admirable and enviable. No big deal. The point of my post is that I was raising a question about your implicit suggestion that his theology lead him to where he is today. I’m not sure that’s true. That’s why I framed the whole thing in a question, “What came first?”
Danica, I did listen to David. I read his post twice, and I wondered why he chose to focus in on a single word like “Sure,” without also telling his readers what I wrote about Mark’s personality. It seems to me that someone as bright as David would have to intentionally miss that, since it’s clear in the post. But according to his comment, he did miss that.
For David to suggest that I “have always admired Driscoll” and even envied him is, to me, trolling. I have written thousands of words about Mark on my blog, and not one of them has been in admiration. I have been chief among those calling out his bad behavior for years. To acknowledge the strength of his intellect is not to admire him, but simply to state what I observed when he and I were in the same circles. He is smart. So are other bad people.
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. I’ve thought about that today, and I cannot think of one thing about Mark’s life that I envy. Not his pulpit, for sure; not even his book sales.
I get the constructive criticism that in this one, 500-word post, I did not fully develop the argument. True. It’s a blog post. I tried to be honest about my thoughts, which a lot of people seemed to appreciate.
So, I’m open to the constructive criticism from David or you, Danica. But accusing me of admiring or envying someone who is a pariah seems not the least bit constructive. Should I write better posts? Yes, for sure. And I will try to. Did I lead people to believe that Mark’s theology, not his personality, are at fault? Looks like it. And for that, I’m sorry. I don’t think it’s that clear.
I had hopes when Tony left for his Internets Sabbatical that he would come back with a listening posture. I thought maybe he realized he needed time for introspection. I thought maybe he was finally taking to heart what people (especially women) have been trying to tell him about his apparent unwillingness to hear what others are saying. His comment above points to my hopes being unfounded.
Come on, Tony. You’re better than this. Would you listen to constructive criticism for ONCE, please?