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
Thanks Tim, but I think it’s probably best for everyone if I’m just done.
Another coment to say I think Linda’s comment about the Shepperading movement struck me as intiutivly genius. Growing up in an independant 2nd wave Charismative-House/Free Church with roots in the Shepherding movement there was allot in the EC and MC that connected to my background. I think it’s Phylis T who has most clearly drawn links form pentecostalism/Charismatic Movements thorugh the Jesus movement to the Emerging Church/Emergence Christinaity with a strong statement about the role of the Vineyard Movement’s role in putting certain things in motion that lead to EV/EC/Emergence. I think it was some of Robby Mac’s work on Post-Charismaticism and Sheperding as an element or Charismaticiscm that is where I first read deeply on that subject and I think there has been allot around the SGM/MHC/EV story’s that has reminded me of allot of what I read about that previously. In some way’s in the Emergent Village the Studied replaced the annoited or the titled as the unquestioned.
Just as a point of clarification to Bill’s post above, while I welcome what I thinkis a imporant point we should al keep in mind I would in no way ever see myself as an important part of the conversation more a present somewhat comenting bystander although my ego was very flattered when I read Bill’s comment :-)
@Doug Not-Pagit, I just saw the comment “To a man it says essentially the same thing. You have no value except as a home for my…,” and I have to disagree somewhat. For some, it might, but not others. But to be sure before posting, I did a quick survey of my close-ish group of male and female friends. Of 9 surveyed, not a single one thought of it in that context (when used in that particular construction). All of us know what the words literally mean, but when used as an insult, we both give and take it as something like “Wow, he/she just one-upped ‘Go to Hell.’” This is not to undermine your point, but simply to note that not all men or women mean or take it that way. Whether it’s a good thing or not, it has been used enough to not be taken as a reference to sexual violence in all cases.
That having been said, we agreed to a person that just because we see it in a more innocuous manner doesn’t mean we should expect expect others to take it that way, especially by someone who might have suffered abuse. (On the other hand, when I explained I was talking about those who shelter abusers, the more or less unanimous phrase was “f ’em.” We are such a low-brow group, my friends and I.)
But this is not meant to detract from the larger conversation. Just thought I’d offer a bit of insight from the uncouth side of the tracks. ;)
DougNotPagitt I would say you have already begun to find your voice. Talking about it in a supportive community and in therapy heals and helps. You are not alone. Maybe you have already done work to release that off of you and put it back where it belongs…back on the abuser. Even though he is dead you can still do healing work to reclaim what was taken. I am so sorry that happened to you. I can’t say that enough to all of the people here (and including myself) who have experienced abuse: physical, emotional, sexual or spiritual.