Tony Jones on Mark Driscoll: What came first, the thug or the theology?

so I don’t miss quote here it is…

hey dude i got this message on facebook from a friend. she said she thought you should know. sorry you are

still dealing with this….

let me know if you need copies of the messages.

hope have a kick ass new years kiss and cigar.

tripp

I’m sorry David, I still don’t understand what you want from me. I haven’t asked you for any documents for some time now, apologized for previously doing so, and have just stated that I won’t publish that I regrettably happen to have. I’m agreeing with you about everything, but I guess I must be thick because I’m just not understanding what else I’m still doing wrong.

Anyway, it doesn’t really matter. I decided to post here because I was curious. Because I had pieced together one version of the events based on the evidence I had gathered at the time, and was hoping the people here could help me see where that version was faulty or inaccurate. But after all these interactions, I’m definitely not curious anymore. It’s not that important to me. I don’t need to know this badly.

Rob Grayson (October 3, 2014 at 4:10 am) said the following:

There is another thing that’s been bugging me in all this. I’ve hesitated to raise it because (a) I didn’t want to derail the conversation and (b) I thought maybe it would be considered a naive question. It has to do with the whole TJ affair and “spiritual wife” bullshit.

Basically, my question is this: how has this been so widely accepted and tolerated? Or, to ask it the other way around, why have more Christian leaders, outside the emergent crowd as well as inside it, not called this lying, God-dishonouring garbage out for what it is? Andrew Jones is the only person so far that I’ve heard use the word “heresy”, which as far as I’m concerned is by no means too strong a word.

I get that someone who has messed up their marriage might be your friend and ministry associate, and that you might want to give them the benefit of the doubt and believe them… But when they invent a false doctrine of spiritual versus legal marriage, surely some kind of red flag has to go up? I just don’t understand why no one made more noise about this.

https://nakedpastor.ehermitsinc.com/2014/09/tony-jones-on-mark-driscoll-what-came-first-the-thug-or-the-theology/#comment-130241

I pondered that a while this morning while silently dialoguing with Mr Coffee. (We always have productive morning-time conversations.) I came up with a few thoughts, for what it’s worth. Not fully formed, so this is still rough, but it seems relevant, so here it is.

I went back to the original topic of this thread, which is about the interconnections between pathology and theology. I’d suggest there is a third element that needs to go into that mix, and that’s authority. Recently, I’ve been in some forum discussions about current events unfolding at Mars Hill Church, and this is part of what I wrote in a recent comment there:

*It seems that anyone with deep pathology can pervert any type of theology to prop up his authority."

It’s intriguing to me that as the dialog in that Mars Hill discussion group has moved through sharing personal stories, and considering some of the “culture of fear” at Mars Hill, the overall emphasis now includes far more about interpretation of events and their meanings, plus — as with here — questions about the underlying theological issues that went wonky. And a lot of what has come up is about how Mark Driscoll manipulated theology to support his authority.

For instance, there was an entire thread there about his misuse of the “first among equals” idea of leadership boards to give the appearance that he was on par with other elders but the reality was that he was CEO and gaming the process to plant supposed “peers” who were really in his pocket. And there was a teaching that infused its way into Mars Hill about Prophet and Priest and King in the Executive Elders in three-fold roles over their flock. And guess where that gem came from? No way to know the exact route for sure, but it is noteworthy that a lot of that exact Prophet-Priest-King teaching comes right from the theology of Derek Prince — one of the four originators of the heretical Shepherding Movement — but amping up his hyper-authority structure for fathers in the family and applying it to the elders in the spiritual family.

Point is, authority to get/do what we want will find a pathological way to manipulate the theology to justify it.

So, I absolutely do NOT think Rob’s question about the “spiritual marriage/legal marriage” heresy is naïve. I also think it showing up now is perhaps because it’s just the natural progression in a conversation to explore the power dynamics of authority misuse in the Emergent movement. Okay, actually, let me alter that from “natural progression” to “supernatural progression.” I suspect this is Spirit-led to consider some deep examination of perversion of theology. Maybe this was always meant to be a part of communal discernment process, but we rarely seem to get this far because it gets pre-empted.

And actually, I would make a case that wonky theology — like the reductionist splitting off of legal marriage from “spiritual” marriage — pre-empts any examination of potential pathology surrounding it. And how did that happen? By creating a false authority/authorization for the aberration. And what was the tool used to do that …?

Back to Mars Hill discussions. Another whole line of inquiry has arisen on the use of sob stories to capture people’s compassion so that they give permission to someone to do something bad that they’d never otherwise do. Wenatchee The Hatchet has paid enough attention to the meta-narrative of Mark Driscoll’s sympathy pleas to tell it like it is:

http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2014/09/mark-driscoll-and-power-of-sob-story_9.html

From books like The Sociopath Next Door by Martha Stout, I recalled that one of the key ways a manipulator hooks people is by sharing stories that make themselves look like they’ve been misunderstood, bullied, attacked, suffering … in short, The Victim. It’s all acting and they’re quite convincing and with a lot of people in The Victim’s audience, the tactic works.

So, ex-Mars Hillites have recounted many places how a sob story about Mark’s burn-out, his wife, his family, his needing to be present for them more, etc. These sympathy-raising issues were a key way in 2007 especially that Mark Driscoll seemed to shift the emotional consensus in his favor to restructure the eldership. Before, he was subject to them; after the 2007 by-laws changes, they were all hand-picked by him. He misused personal authority of his story to alter the organizational authority to his liking, and tweaked the theology of authority along the way with more Prophert-Priest-King gobbledeegoo.

Okay, back to the Emergent movement. Vastly different spot on the theological spectrum, but not-so-different in apparent sympathy techniques. As Julie herself has suggested in a few comments on this thread, it’s the sob storyline of “the suffering spouse” whose wife has become mentally ill, and the marriage has long since declined, but she is still grasping to keep it alive or alternatively to take revenge, and et cetera, et cetera. [Enter “spiritual wife” understudy from stage left, and need to move the old recalcitrant former/legal wife off, stage right. Or perhaps lock her up? Shades of Jane Eyre!] And isn’t it all just so sad, and if only we didn’t have this American political/legal system of marriage it wouldn’t be working out in such a devastating way for “the suffering spouse,” would it? 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?

Gradually, what was a personal issue of an individual Victim gets hidden and justified behind a social-political “justice” issue of a community. But political pimping for a purpose is okay, isn’t it? All attention feeds the cause, right?

I guess when there is no truly reasoned and doctrinal authority to back up what we desire to do, we shift to create emotional authorization. That’s the ultimate base of our pathology that motivates twists in theology.

And, uhh, ALL OF US DO THIS, DON’T 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.

Et cetera, et cetera …

Back in 2008 when I reached out to the Emergent people to help because one of there own had gone off the deep end the strangest thing happened. I don’t know if a mass memo went out or if the cult-like culture was so conditioned they just followed along like lemmings but when I sent that email instead of an empathetic response to me I received stonewalling and silence and the Pastors sent what they received from me directly to Tony. I just re-read a legal document in which Tripp Fuller says, “Sorry dude you have to deal with this….a friend got this so I am forwarding it to you….hope you have a great year and let’s have a cigar.” That was the empathetic response to a victim when sharing her story. This happened over and over and over. Then HE used them all in the courtroom to try and win a case that I ruined his career and parental alienation. It was denied but I think this illustrates the enmeshed, interlocked cult-like culture. Stonewall the victim and prop up the abuser.

What’s your last name? Unless you have something to hide or an alternative motive then there should be absolutely zero issue with doing so. So, you have a blog? What is the name of your blog that you would like to exploit my story onto? I think that is a pretty valid and fairly simple request. Thank you AGAIN for simply providing your last name and or blog. Mine is McMahon and yours is? Maybe we can chat and I can share my story in detail with you. BUT I need a name first….otherwise you can say, “I’m not safe” BUT ACTUALLY I am not safe until you share your last name.