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
Billy, get a grip on reality!
It’s a public forum. That alone is a huge difference!
Everyone close to the situation has been invited to comment, and most of the players have.
Anyone is free to share.
Everything is public and remains on permanent record.
No-one is excluded.
No-one’s responses are edited.
No-one exercises power and control over the content or direction of the discussion.
If you really can’t see the difference between this context, and the events described on this thread… I’m genuinely concerned for your ability to comprehend and analyse what you’re reading here. (Have you read the whole thread?)
Or is it your ability to assume honesty and good faith that’s lacking?
Oh, and please Google “concern trolling”. It will be an education for you, and a relief for us.
Julie – if you read my post, you would find that I said that your’s and other’s comments "represents speculation of a “conspiracy” or a “cover up”. Not once have I said you or others are lying. What has been said about the “Discernment Group” being a part of a massive cover-up includes no fact. That is what I am calling out, nothing else.
Doug NOT-Pagitt – if you are offended by the use of profanity, certainly your thing to deal with, but clearly something that has been used throughout this thread. I am not a man of God so I don’t feel like I have to honor him with my comments.
I realize my comments are coming across as brash, especially among a group of people with some serious pain. Despite what some may believe, it is not my goal to step on the toes of these genuine issues. Though, hopefully you will see that I am asking for some accountability for direct comments aimed at others that are based on rumor and speculation. There should not be room anywhere – blogs, forums, or otherwise for any of that.
ReliStuPhD – I encourage you to stand with the powerless, though you might want to look to your left and right to see who you are actually standing with. Instead you are acting no differently than those you disparage in this forum.
Yes, Linda!
Flattery, yes, as long as you’re doing what you’re told.
And then I’ve been the scapegoat a few times, in religious and non-religious contexts.
The transition in itself is damaging, and often leaves the target thinking they’ve done something wrong, or are something wrong. When it’s actually the system that is broken.
As an engineer and reluctant manager, I think the church would benefit from an education in systems theory and organisational behaviour. Many liberal/progressive/emergent types claim to focus on broken social structures, but are woefully unprepared for the task.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics Systemantics/The Systems Bible by John Gall (1975) :
“New Systems mean new problems”
“Systems in general work poorly or not at all”
“Complicated systems produce unexpected outcomes”
“Systems tend to oppose their own proper function”
“People in systems do not actually do what the system says they are doing”
“The system itself does not actually do what it says it is doing”
“Systems develop goals of their own the instant they come into being”
“Intrasystem goals [the system’s own goals] come first”
“As systems grow in size, they tend to lose basic functions”
“The larger the system, the less the variety in the product”
“The crucial variables are discovered by accident”
“The real world is what it is reported to the system [The Fundamental Law of Administrative Workings (F.L.A.W.)]”
“The Functional Indeterminacy Theorem (F.I.T.): In complex systems, malfunction and even total non-function may not be detectable for long periods, if ever”
“The Newtonian Law of Systems Inertia: A system that performs a certain way will continue to operate in that way regardless of the need or of changed conditions”
“The Fundamental Failure-Mode Theorem (F.F.T.): Complex systems usually operate in failure mode”
“The mode of failure of a complex system cannot ordinarily be predicted from its structure”
“The larger the system, the greater the probability of unexpected failure”
“‘Success’ or ‘Function’ in any system, may be ‘Failure’ in the larger or smaller systems to which the system is connected”
“Systems attract systems-people”
“Control of a system is exercised by the element with the greatest variety of behavioral responses”
“Complex systems tend to produce complex responses (not solutions) to problems”
“Great advances are not produced by systems designed to produce great advances”
“Choose your systems with care”
Linda (October 3, 2014 at 7:22 pm) said: “The leadership idol is alive and well in the church. It is a mutual pathology, people who want a king and those who want to be king.”
Reminds me of what a college friend of mine, also named Linda, said 40 years ago and it’s stuck with me all that time: “Manipulators and martyrs go together in matched pairs.”
Not saying that as a blame-the-victim formula, but to go back to the question of, “What made me susceptible to being taken in …?”
Every serial abuse perpetrator knows how to identify and groom his/her victims … and once they’re snagged/converted to his/her system, how to condition them to keep them there.
Rob, very true. The need to belong is a common reason that people tend to overlook things that should raise red flags; the social cost of “seeing” is too high.
Tim, in addition to criticism to control, flattery is also used. As you suggested, the social pecking order then kicks in so that the group enforces the leader’s control.
In a high-control system, especially if there is a narcissist involved, asking questions or disagreeing will automatically make you a target for the leader and a scapegoat for the community.
The leadership idol is alive and well in the church. It is a mutual pathology, people who want a king and those who want to be king.
Good insights Tim.