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
@ Syl : Thanx but I wish I had half of David’s creativity.
@ David and Syl and …:
I love the Ouroboros symbol and have used it a great deal in my writing and thinking.
The Ouroborus is embraced by mysticism, alchemy, and many others — and has many uses. People and movements use it in different ways, so it has no one meaning, of course (as is the nature of symbols).
As for me, I have always used it in a positive sense for the self eating the self. The healthy release of identity.
(http://triangulations.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/identity/ click here to see my posts on identity )
The double ouroborus I use in the sense of continual self creation.
Here, David, in his indomitable creative weirdness, has the Chicken eating its own creation—the egg—but not really eating itself.
We raise chickens (both for meat and eggs), it is a great curse when chickens eat their own eggs — they must be then turned into meat-birds.
So David’s drawing is perhaps less like an ouroborus than like Saturn devouring his own children. Or Mark Driscoll, creating blind followers and then eating them. Conclusion: Driscoll needs to become a meat-bird.
David and Sabio – great minds think alike!
Seems to me that if a framework of questionable theology ripe for exploitation didn’t already exist, the sociopathic bully with religious leanings will create his or her own – which is how cults are born. Bad theology without someone to promote, exploit, and expand it will either remain unpleasant background noise or fade away. But when paired with a charismatic personality and the will to power, it can do great harm – and not only to those in the direct line of fire of the bully.
This Ouroboros births and feeds on itself. Hopefully the feeding cycle will outpace the birthing rate and it will eat itself into oblivion. (But I’m not holding my breath…)
OYFG. It sounds like the whole of Mars Hill was rotten to the core, from the top down. Go read the blog entries over at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/ to get the continuing sordid drama.
The crap that some will pull (and people will sheepishly support) in the name of Joshua ben Joseph is astounding.
Each version of the major options in theology is quite capable of distortion by toxic people. The bold lines that emerge under the forceful hands of toxic people are usually healthy lines prior to the force. Calvinism has lines that are attractive to certain forms of toxicity, while Arminianism or the Anabaptist orientation … Orthodoxy… Catholicism, each has elements easily turned into toxicity. On their own, however, those theologies are more or less healthy and capable of expressing the gospel and grace.
It seems that the thuggery and theology feed off the other. Being a thug to spread the Gospel is a means to end, and end which is exalted above all else. This only emboldens them and allows them to grow confident in their thuggery b/c no one wants to question someone spreading the “Good News”.