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
Brad and Rob, I have come to the conclusion that an improper understanding of spiritual authority is the common root of all spiritual abuse. I agree with a friend who said that the aftereffects of the Shepherding Movement continue to this day. Methodology and doctrine from the shepherding movement plus a strong dose of Watchman Nee’s “Spiritual Authority” were the toxic weapons of my spiritual abuse experience.
Rob said: “Why are so many taken in by this? Why don’t more people speak up and shine a light on this blatant heresy? What a sad indictment of the spiritual maturity (or lack thereof) of vast numbers of western Christians.”
The followers’ improper understanding of spiritual authority is based in the unexamined acceptance of the teaching of the person they follow. I agree that it is a sad indictment on a lack of spiritual maturity. However, most people have no need to question until their status quo is disrupted.
The leaders’ improper understanding of spiritual authority is either inherited or created. There are many leaders with wrong beliefs about authority who are simply repeating what they have learned. There is also an element of inherent pathology, as Brad said, “Authority to get/do what we want will find a pathological way to manipulate the theology to justify it."
Yeah, well if I wanted someone to put me on a stick, and mount me like a flag…
I would have done my best to attract the attention of the Ancient Romans!
Tim that is what made me really chaffed. This person had no care for advocacy for the LGBT UNTIL it became the hot topic of the day. I really bristle at how they were exploited to give credence to their diversity act.
^So many times. Thanks for a concrete example of what I was trying to say, Lydia. :)
“3. While I understand the move by some to seek forgiveness and ultimately reconciliation, I hope the notion that all can be redeemed is not pushed to the point that it protects the abuser at the expense of the abused”
Yeah, I get where you are coming from. I have the same concerns. In fact, I think people should tell their stories so people can decide if they are in a healthy place or can avoid unhealthy places. I often think of Diotrephes. I mean here is a guy who wanted control yet John wrote about him in a letter for people to pass around and would eventually be read by zillions for 2000 years. Correct venue?
One thing I noticed about the book of Timothy is that Paul (if that is correct author) named names in certain circumstances which would become public knowledge. He is careful as in those not naming those deceived out of ignorance yet naming those who deceive on purpose like Hy and Al. Correct venue?
There are some things that should be made public for the sake of spiritual health, truth, etc. I had a woman tell me not long ago that after her horrific abuse at the hands of her husband (she had to have 6 operations because the abuse was so extensive) she went for counseling with a current mega church pastor who back then was an associate pastor who still did that sort of thing.
He told her she had to take half the blame for the abuse and he would not condone her remarrying if she did not do so. Now if that is not bad enough, this woman went on to tell me she totally forgives him and supports him now. I asked her if she has told anyone else of his counsel at that church and she said no because she has “forgiven” him. So why bring it up? He is now the mega church pastor.
That is not forgiveness. That is affirming lies and sweeping them under a rug. What other sort of counsel has he given over the last 18 years to other abused women? What he counseled her is just another form of abuse. Does he really not know better? Or is staying married to an abuser more important? It is a very complementarian church.
That is why people should tell their stories when they are strong enough in a safe environment. It also acts as a protection for others.