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
Tim, it’s nice to meet someone else peculiarly interested in the psychological and social dynamics of power and leadership. I am glad that awareness of these issues is growing through many avenues including places like this comment thread where people are able to share their experiences and gain understanding from one another.
Billy Madison, I have no reservations about the side I’ve chosen here. That you think I am “acting no differently than those you disparage in this forum” tells me you’ve either not read all of the comments, despite your claim to the contrary, or you’ve not understood them. Either way, your advice rings hollow.
David Hayward and Doug NOT-Pagitt, you’ve made a fair point on the profanity. While I’m not particularly concerned about the language itself, I certainly do not wish to narrow the conversation. As such, my apologies if my word-choice has created an atmosphere that is less conducive to a multitude of voices. I’ll keep it PG-13 going forward. (They still had it comin’, tho ;) )
@Julie: Thank for hearing. Not need to apologize to me. Your “Irish” was completely in context and understandable.
Re: language: something people might want to consider regarding the “f-u” phrase. It is an expression of violence. To a woman it means that I think so little of you that I would rape you and discard you. We know that rape is about control, so…
To a man it says essentially the same thing. You have no value except as a home for my…. Oh wait. Someone already said that a while back elsewhere.
The language we use in discourse with those with whom we disagree speaks volumes, especially when it evokes violence.
How will we ever find common ground and reconciliation if our language remains violent?
Just something to think about.
Not offended. Still listening and praying for the abused. Julie, I may take you up on your offer, when I find my voice. Be blessed!
Linda, an even more obscure reference for our amusement:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Company-Savage-Page-Martin/dp/0340178752 The Company Savage by Martin Page (1972) takes an amusing look at US society through the lens of an anthropologist studying a primitive, superstitious society.
Organisational Behaviour:
“I had known for a long time that many so-called savage communities were arguably far more socially sophisticated than our’s (sic).”
“Few companies are as much as a century old, while many… tribes have had two thousand years or more in which to move towards organisational perfection, and to learn not merely how to live together, but to flourish as a group.”
“[I have changed the names of some of the tribes] so as not to cause unnecessary offence to the chiefs and members of the courts who said generously gave me the time and knowledge. As an institution, such people regard the tribe with reverence and would be deeply offended to find it publicly compared with a business company.”
Treatment of Outsiders:
“The mystery of the !Kuk is why the productive tribes off which they live as parasites tolerate them at all. This is also, one might think, the mystery that the advertising industry presents.”
“The Bantus tolerate !Kuks because of the emotional outlet they provide. A !Kuk’s basic role in Bantu Life is as someone who is there to be kicked around on occasions when it would be inappropriate to kick a fellow Bantu. For one Bantu to cheat another out of a fair profit in a business deal is unethical. To do so to a !Kuk is regarded as treating the fellow the way he deserves.”
Affairs:
“If a Bantu chief relieves his dyspepsia too often by bawling out his subordinates, they will leave and join another. But he can call in some !Kuks and be as mean as he likes to them with impunity. Indeed, the !Kuk’s stock response is offer their persecutor the services of a woman.”
Entertainment:
“Similarly, a Bantu chief who feels friendless or bored will go to a !Kuk settlement and foist his company on them there. Fearing economic reprisals if they don’t, the !Kuks affect delight and amusement, and see that his drinking gourd is constantly filled. !Kuks, in brief, are the steam valve through which Bantu chiefs blow off the exercise is inside them without harming their own organisations.”
Dependency and Exclusivity:
“Advertising services can indeed be run from within most corporations. But it is the essence of !Kuks that while they be constantly within reach, and be dependent on the productive tribes good will to earn their livings, they be kept strictly outside the tribal organisation.”
I am both disturbed and amused by the parallels to this narrative – particularly given western Christianity’s insistence on “civilising” “primitive” tribes.
Tim, fascinating information on systems theory! It took five years unraveling of what happened to us before I got to the point that I could name what went wrong, take responsibility for my part and identify the behaviors toward us that were clearly wrong and abusive. After that, I spent another two years in graduate school learning about organizational behavior. During that time I read much of the existing academic material on leadership. I feel clear now about healthy and unhealthy leadership. I agree that almost all of the leadership teaching in the church world is crap! Organizational leadership and spiritual leadership cannot be lumped together as if they are the same thing. The church world needs to trash their business leadership manuals and pay attention to what someone like Brad/futuristguy has to say about healthy church systems.