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
DougNOTPagitt. I am so sorry that 12 year old you was sexually abused. That a man in your church did that to you makes me want to swear! But I won’t and I apologize for doing so in this thread. It is just so wrong for those who hold the power and the ear of the audience to abuse it. You said you never had an opportunity to tell your story. This opportunity is offered to you here or more privately inside the Lasting Supper community. It is a very healing space where you are allowed to be raw and real and supported. I am so sorry some weak, weak man did that to you.
Actually, @brad/futuristguy (October 3, 2014 at 1:36 pm), I think it’s my communication that was at fault. I’m really sorry about being ambiguous and flippant.
To clarify:
I wanted to hurl at the behaviour you were describing, not the way you were speaking about the issues.
I wanted to inject an ironic counterpoint to your assertions about scripture, for those who have non-theist/non-religious-text tendencies.
I seem to have failed at one or both, and instead caused you concern about being misinterpreted.
I’m glad we can talk this through.
Just a word about “fuck you!” I’m not offended by it. I’m sure it’s the same with so many others here. It is strong language and is often effective in making a point. I use it at times, usually on myself. But there are some in this conversation that will be discouraged from participating because of it. It’s like a movie rating… the stronger the language the smaller the audience. Just thought I might say that because the conversation is too important to inadvertently exclude some.
Kate,
I think the biggest burden the “Literal Word of God” folks carry, is the burden of pretending that the Word goes straight from God to the Bible to them. (Or straight from God to them, if they’re of the charismatic bent – why not just cut out the middleman entirely?)
Even with the most generously conservative assumptions, the process is more like:
God, to people/culture, to memory/perception, to words/language, to scribes/language, to documents, to copies, to translators/culture, to words/language, to people/culture, to community/leaders, …
While many would argue the details, the core elements of this process are undeniable, and many of them are attested within the scriptures themselves.
Maintaining this facade, in the light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, must be a terrible strain.
@Donna McDaniel (October 3, 2014 at 5:34 pm) said: [[Brad Sargent, with the case studies and research you’ve done, do you have a sort of guideline for a good restoration process? My main concern is that too many of these “leaders” are restored just with the passing of time and no concern as to what has really taken place in the heart. Not that anyone can ever know another person’s heart fully. But what about guidelines; things to look for? Surely it would include a real attempt to restore relationship to the abused parties, wouldn’t it? At the bare minimum, repent to the abused?]]
I think the most recent series I finished would help. “Responsibility for Spiritual Abuse” sets up a holistic framework for building a “remediation” plan. I used that word because I like how it ties in with “remedy,” and also “remedial work” for filling in the gaps in our paradigms and the holes in our soul. It can also encompass more than personal repentance by leaders, and include organizational repair/renovation with its systems are toxic.
Anyway, that series includes stuff dealing with both the individual and corporate levels of peace-making actions, plus a continuum of how toxic the person or organization is, links to related material on restitution, etc. (Several people have messaged me that the material and continuum chart in Step 3 was especially helpful — Step 3 – Injuries and Illnesses: Slight or Severe? Temporary or Chronic? Superficial or Systemic?) This was designed as the overall framework, so it may be short on specific details for any given topic, like potential restoration. But it does have a lot of “indicators” along the way — concrete things to watch for that demonstrate illness, healthiness, or healing underway. In other words, potential “fruit of repentance.”
This is from a curriculum I’ve been writing. I’ve tried to make it as accessible as possible, through use of charts and illustrations and such. It’s broken into about a dozen articles, and works to build up gradually from core topics to more complexity. (As we’ve perhaps experienced at various times, it doesn’t help to reduce complex processes to “best tips” and checklists of Top 10 points .) Anyway, it includes these topics and more:
Core questions about responsibility, culpability, complicity and recovery — and different roles people play in toxic systems and what that means in terms of their level of responsibility. Differences between BEING responsible for damage and TAKING responsibility for it. Attitudes and actions it takes from both sides to build a positive, balanced “remediation” plan for potential reconciliation. Leaders who inflicted abuse need to deal with (1) personal growth issues and (2) interpersonal restoration issues. The group/organization affected needs to deal with (1) toxic leaders and (2) sick organizational systems.Here’s the link to the first post in the series, and there’s links to all 11 posts at the bottom of each article.
http://futuristguy.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/responsibility-for-spiritual-abuse-part-1/
Hope you’ll find this of help, Donna … If you (or other readers) have questions, I’ll try to follow up as best I can, when I can. (I’ll be offline quite a bit the rest of October with various obligations.)