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
Hey Tony. Thanks for your comment. Um… that I intentionally gave an erroneous interpretation of your post is an interesting suggestion. I guess either I didn’t pick up the clarity or there wasn’t any. I can be dense at times so there’s that. I’m not sure it’s Calvinism because we find misogyny and homophobia in all theological expressions. And I’m not sure what came first either. Hence the Ouroboros-themed cartoon. I’m glad you’re trying to shine a light on theology that is created by and creates bad attitudes and behavior. That’s what I’m trying to do as well. Thanks again.
David, your post is not a fair reading of my post, but I think you know that. I make clear in the post that, in my experience, Mark had significant personality predilections that led to this abuse. Whether his personality was the match and Calvinism was the gasoline, or vice versa, I don’t know. The point of my post was that the two are a combustible combination.
I’m not dismissing any of the abuse or pathology. I’m trying to shine a light on the theology for all of his (former) colleagues who are ready to throw MD off the bus but refuse to look at their own misogynistic, homophobic theology.
4,000 people are now closer to being happily religion-free.
Maybe he did them an ironic favor.
I agree. The bully embraced a theology that fit his moral compass. It’s a warped theology. But, I think it is one of the possible end results of embracing a religion that emphasizes, and values men over women. Women are property. Women are to be owned. Women are to be used. Women are ‘penis holders’ as Driscoll crudely points out. If as a man, you do not agree with Driscoll’s theology, you have been ‘pussified’. You are less than a man. You should be berated. You should be mocked. You should be emotionally violated. The theology Driscoll, and sadly, many others embrace stems from a culture far removed from ours in time. The culture that this theology, or, more accurately, ideology stems from was a culture in which women were property. It was a patriarchal society far removed from the 21st Century. It has no place in today’s world. Driscoll does not seem to understand this. The end result is the staggering mess that is happening at Mars Hill. Former leaders have either left or been ‘released’, (aka – FIRED) for daring to question Driscoll and his theology. Last night, KING 5 News in Seattle ran this story about MHC closing and consolidating campuses. The numbers quoted are staggering. Just 3 months ago, Mars Hill and the surrounding Seattle campuses drew over 12,000 people. Today, that number has dropped to less than 8,000. The leadership of MHC blames, ‘negative press and publicity over the past several months’. That tells me that the leadership still refuses to accept that Driscoll and his faulty ideology have had anything to do with this. The real sad thing is that over 4,000 former members and leaders of this church are now directly affected and suffering because one bully used his pulpit to twist theology to his way of thinking.
If you read his blog you know Tony is quite often an intellectual bully himself, so it is not surprising to me that he feels it could happened to any of them and that he wants to give Driscoll an out by blaming it on the theology rather than pathology. I doesn’t hurt that he also advocates a competing theology. I think you are right that theology can often be a Rorscharch Test. Maybe always, I’m not sure. Is the reason my theological musings have changed as I age because I am discovering ‘true’ theology, or that I am adjusting my theology to my new perspective? I am inclined to think it is the second. I find that the underlying sin of most theological abusers is rooted in false certainty born of insecurity.