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-thank you for your analysis. It was mind blowing watching the theology over the years parallel the life choices. They were displayed pathologically and in an effort to rationalize actions publicly and seeking affirmation from the reflection of his audience.
RelistPhD-Thank you. Just, thank you.
Alex,
We want a real person.
Not an inquisitor. Or an agenda. (You keep bringing these up, by the way.)
We don’t exist to satisfy your need for sources. (And we won’t be used by you, or anyone.)
But if you listen, you will learn… and learn more than from any documents!
Just be genuine. Have a conversation.
Talk on someone else’s terms.
Engage with their interests.
Be part of the thread, rather than attempting to direct it.
Let go of your preconceptions.
Take others’ statements on faith.
Please, please, Alex, just drop certain subjects. Stop using certain words.
They’re leaving a very bad taste in our mouths.
In short:
Create a post that is about someone else and what they want to talk about.
Don’t talk about anything you expect from the thread.
Drop all your previous topics.
Apologise by acting different.
@brad/futuristguy, thanks for responding to my question. And thanks for validating that I’m not hopelessly naive.
(BTW, any time before 9am, Mr Coffee is my best and only friend.)
I think what you’re saying, in summary, is that where clear scriptural/doctrinal authority is lacking, individuals with agendas will do anything and everything in their power to create “emotional authority” to justify their desired behaviour.
OK, I get that. A narcissist like TJ will do whatever it takes to achieve the desired goal.
Bu my question remains: 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.
“psi and suffering” should be “pain and suffering,” and “settle things face-to-face” was meant in the sense of that being the only “appropriate” way. Face-to-face is good, but it is not the only appropriate way to do things.
Wow. I’ve finally gotten to the end of all the comments and I am in awe of what has happened here. The strength and courage on display by so man stands in direct contrast to the cowardice displayed by a few so-called “leaders.” Julie’s story obviously stands out, but each story of pain and suffering at the hands of men and women who claim to be “called by God” contributes to a narrative whole that must never be forgotten.
A few thoughts, in no particular order of importance:
1. Progressive Christians will, I hope, learn from this thread that the personality cults that give us the Jimmy Swaggerts and Mark Driscolls of the world also give us the Tony Jones and Doug Pagitts. Confirmation bias can be a blinding force, and progressives would do all to remember this. Wickedness is not solely the domain of “conservatives."
2. The reaction of Danielle Shroyer (and Brad Cecil’s “I don’t care” childishness, to a lesser extent) is as a clear a sign as any to me of the corruption that runs trough the entire movement. As someone who at one time flirted with the movement, I am saddened to see my suspicions confirmed: the emergent movement really just served as a way of getting out from under the strictures of personal accountability. Shroyer’s immediately combative response just shows me how little of actual value there is in her words about understanding, communication, and reconciliation outside this forum. Even if she feels wronged, there are ways to approach this issue that respect the psi and suffering of those who hav been silenced. She knows this, and I have even heard her pontificate at both Journey and on the "DART Stations of the Cross” to this effect. To see such arrogance here completely undermines her as a leader. I think this is a sign of a larger sickness within a movement that has questioned tradition to the point that it has lost any sort of moral grounding. After all, when you look to yourself and your friends for your moral compass, you’re likely to never see yourself as having gone astray.
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. For the sake of future victims, perhaps there should come a point when efforts at reconciliation give way to clear denunciation of not just the acts but the person him/herself. I know this is not the thread for it, but let me go on record as saying that sometimes an “I do not consider him to be a brother/sister in Christ” does more good for those who have been abused than a “judge not.” (It’s also worth noting that I am a self-identified apostate, so I don’t exactly feel bound by the strictures of Christian practice.)
4. (With semi-apologies for the harsh words…) Suggestions from some here that the abused and the abuser settle things face-to-face are absolute bullshit. It is neither Christian nor humane to do so. The abused must settle things however they can. So to those cowards who have responded in this thread to the effect of “I really think we need to settle this in a private forum,” fuck you.
5.Regardless of my harsh words or anti-Christian intimations, this thread does give me hope for the future of Christianity. You are some good people, and if more Christians behaved as you do, there would be much less pain in the world.
One last point that I don’t want to get lost in the bullets: Julie, I have a daughter and I hope she never has to go through what you have. If, however, she does, I hope (dare I say pray) that she has the strength you have displayed here. Even as the father in me bristles at the thought of some asshole like Tony Jones ever being that close to her, there is definitely hope in thinking that she might show the intelligence, wisdom, courage, and motherly love that you have. You are an inspiration.
Peace to you all. I will continue to follow the thread and post where it seems appropriate. You are some very strong people and I am privileged to have heard your stories.