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
P.S. Even Israel’s “good” kings did some pretty terrible things.
David’s adultery, and David and Solomon’s harems come to mind, particularly in the context of this conversation.
That’s just greed, pure and simple.
Billy Madison, it speaks volumes that you took personally a comment aimed at those who would provide the abuser with yet another opportunity to continue their abuse. I can only express deep satisfaction that you’ve taken offense. I’m happy to be targeted for standing with the powerless.
Listening….
Oops, my emphasis was lost by the blog software:
Israel: “appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have”
God/The Prophet Samuel:
“We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”“they have rejected me [God] as their king”
“warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights”
“He will take your sons and make them serve”
“He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers”
“He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants”
“you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day”
This looks so much like Mars Hill (and many others), it’s creeping me out.
Linda, Re: Spiritual Authority / Spiritual Abuse
So much so – I have seen pastors who demanded submission, and would berate people until they complied. Then they would subtly and continually criticise people to keep them in their place. They allowed discussion, but only on their terms. And if you challenged their authority, or stepped outside these bounds… the community would enforce it for them.
Why did I become involved? There was a lot of good with the bad. I thought I could manage the toxicity. I thought I could keep my distance. But as soon as I started to really struggle, I became an easy target, who couldn’t push back.
At the core of many people’s thinking is a misunderstanding of leadership: “the greatest among you will be your servant, and the slave of all” (Jesus), but we want to be kings. Or be led by them.
And you know what the prophet said about kings:
’So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, “… appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”
But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me [God] as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”
But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”’
— Samuel in 1 Samuel 8 (NIV), emphasis mine
And for much of the church, it is so.