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
Alex, disappointing that your curiosity and interest conveniently end exactly at the point of a request for some type of relational accountability. You obviously understand that there are a multitude of ways for you to simply verify your identity and establish trust with Julie or David behind the scenes. Choosing to disengage at that point speaks volumes.
Ah, brad/futuristguy, pass the bucket, I’m going to hurl again – don’t anyone dare use our people to justify your affair/divorce/stance on marriage/progressive credentials!
(The LGBT community is also pretty sensitive to being used. Far more than Christians, by the way. You can tell an LGBT-ally/affirming/abusive organisation by the fact that they have no, or only token, visible LGBT people. People learn pretty quickly when they’re not wanted. And Christians are damn good at communicating that to LGBT people!)
“And, hey, isn’t that just in so many ways similar to the situation in the LGBT communities with not being able to legally marry the one they are truly spiritually partnered with? And so ministers should not conduct political/legal marriages because of the travesty it is to the suffering LGBT community, should we?
…
But it looks like anything goes when an entire movement has seemingly so deconstructed its theology that there is no God-grounded authority left. Then the Bible is no longer our guide-source, the bible is just our bitch.”
On another, less nauseating note, you assume here that if the Bible was used (perfectly?) as a guide-source, then everything would be ok (perfect?). #justsaying
I’ve inserted the “perfect?” hyperbole because it makes the deconstruction easier :-)
Oh, Julie, I just felt sick reading that letter. It gave me the creeps.
Dear Referee McGrath,
I hate to trouble the court again, but I feel that you must be made aware of Ms. Jones’s continued
destruction of my reputation. As you will see in the attached emails and Facebook messages,
Ms. Jones has contacted persons as recently as yesterday (December 30, 2009) whom I do not
even know—and I’m assuming that she does not know, either—and telling them that I had an
affair. It seems that she has found these people by searching the Internet for persons who post
reflections about my books.
As you can imagine, this kind of behavior is extremely deleterious to my writing and speaking
career (which is difficult to understand, since Ms. Jones and our children are reliant upon that
income). Further, you specifically told Ms. Jones to discontinue this behavior in court on
October 7, 2008 (Ms. Grandchamp produced a similar document that day).
I ask that you take this behavior into consideration when ruling on the recent motions in which I
asked the court for more protection from this harassment. Since our hearings in November, Ms.
Jones has again contacted Ms. Courtney Perry and her former husband, Christopher Hamilton
and written messages to me on Our Family Wizard that have been antagonistic and offensive. I
have included my correspondence with Mr. Ahlvers regarding these incidents.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Anthony H. Jones
In light of the smoke screen created by Partial-Lex, intentionally or otherwise, I think it’s https://nakedpastor.ehermitsinc.com/2014/09/tony-jones-on-mark-driscoll-what-came-first-the-thug-or-the-theology/#comment-130126 important to highlight @MatyBigFro’s comment . He was an important part of the Emerging Church conversation back in its North American heyday.
Some of his words:
“I remember reading and often thinking Stephanie and Becky’s criticisms too harsh, too personal and too emotional. What I recognize now was the ingrained misogyny which discounts the testimony and accounts of women and favors the arguments of the men in the mix. I’ve apologized elsewhere but I feel here is also as good as anywhere for that. I remember disagreeing at times with both of them online (although sometimes also agreeing) I’m no-one and not even in the conversation anymore I don’t believe and just spectate allot of what goes on these day’s but I wanna own my own misogyny as I continue to try and unpick and leave it behind. To those who i didn’t hear or listen to well enough, I’m truly sorry.”