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:
I know this must be difficult for you because you don’t seem to be getting it. I’m not interested in publishing documents or correspondences from outside this blog post from either side. You seem obsessed with either us giving them or you providing them. It gives the feel that you’re up to no good.
Alex, please listen to our suggestions, and do something to (re-)establish trust.
Alternately, politely take your leave, self-reflect*, and engage later, when you have some perspective.
Suggestions coming.I did consider telling you who I got the email from, but since they haven’t shown up here yet (as far as I can tell), I don’t think it would be appropriate to drag him into the conversation unwillingly. Protecting sources actually is a really big deal, both in journalism and elsewhere. Besides, I haven’t talked to him in years. For all I know maybe he’s moved on from this whole emergent thing too since then.
I’ve already said above how I got the information and as much as I can say about who I got it from. I will say however, that re-reading what he wrote to me when he forwarded the email at the time, I don’t think he thought it was a private correspondence. His exact words were, “The whole thing bothers me too. Unfortunately I don’t know much but I did get a strange email from Tony’s ex-wife a while back. Not sure why since I’ve never met her. But since she seems to have sent it to a lot of different people, including folks she doesn’t know, I’m guessing there’s nothing in it that needs to be kept especially private.”
Maybe he was wrong about that or wrong to send it to me, but at any rate, I certainly wouldn’t publish the whole thing on a blog without Julie’s consent. Which is precisely why I asked her whether she’d like me to do that before doing actually doing so.
No, I got it David. This is not the place for evidence and verdicts. I’ve agreed with you on that point several times now and apologized for misunderstanding. I’m not sure what else you want me to say.
Alex,
Please share how you received the document you’ve been quoting.
Please share as much as you can about your source.
We’ve already flagged the release of that private info as an abuse of those who trusted emergent leaders.
It’s a story worth telling. (And regardless of whether you tell it or not, we have already found it very telling.)
And I’m sure we can take your transparency in good faith. (Unless you use your story as a platform to expect more.)
Tim who uses a surname in TLS and other forums, but not in web-indexable places
(Please don’t use my choice as an excuse, Alex – it was intended as an empathetic gesture)