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.
1079 comments
What’s your last name? Let’s start there. Thank you, Alex for providing your last name as the vast majority of us have. Thank you.
Yes David, as I admitted above, I did indeed misunderstand the nature of this conversation, and for that I have apologized. My original thought was that since numerous serious accusations had been made against a wide group of public figures, that this forum would be an appropriate venue for discovering more of the facts and details around those accusations. You have since made it clear that it is not and I accept that. I do, however, still believe that discovering those facts and details would be very important thing for all of us to do at some point before passing any final judgments. So if not here, then in what forum would you recommend?
“I’m also not sure why it’s okay for Julie and others to mention these other scandals, but it’s not okay for me to ask them to be more specific. "
It is not about proving anything to you. That is where all this is breaking down for the emergent apologists like Brad Cecil, etc. So what is an appropriate venue for people to tell their stories when they have been silenced? The bottom line is that many don’t want the other side told at all. Even in snippets.
Another problem with stories like Julie’s is they involve a very clever narcissist and people do not understand how an NPD operates. They want a rational chronology of events that make rational sense and there is an obvious pattern of one person being the wrong doer. That is not how dealing with a narcissist works at all. In fact, before it is all done, the narcissist has used many people who don’t even know they were used! And if they figure it out they don’t want it outed for various reasons. The narcissist can do hundreds of covert bad things but if the other party does one stupid thing it is heralded to the roof tops and “proves” their point. That is just how it works. They are deceivers and quite good at it. And they use other people’s goodness, justice and transparency against them.
This just feeds right into ministry celebrity stuff. The good guy on stage saying the right things and people believe that is who they really are when they really have no clue who they are at all. Cult of personality is a huge problem in Christendom. And growing daily.
Alex,
I think your part in this conversation may be recoverable. I may be wrong. Much of it will depend on what you do next. Much will depend on how others react. (I have no desire to control either of these.)
I have some suggestions to share with you and others in the conversation. They’re for discussion – again, not rules, just some starting points.
I’m not here to embarrass you, but what I suggest may well leave you feeling awkward, confronted, or out of your depth. If so, it will pass – as you work through it. Or you can take a break whenever you want.
Disclosure:
Either you have a document you really shouldn’t have, or you have a connection you’re concealing, or both.
You seem to be operating on the basis of journalistic ethics: never disclose a source.
But in this context, it looks less than transparent.
It may restore trust if you cede control of this document to Julie, it’s author.
I don’t know exactly what this looks like (that’s up to Julie).
But I just can’t see how you posting it, after she has clearly expressed her refusal to post her copy, could be anything but a very, very bad move.
It may restore trust if you name your connection, or how you received the document.
But, again, best to confirm with Julie how she wants this communicated.
And finally, my own disclosure: I also operate on a first name basis publicly, out of a desire to preserve a safe space for me and for others. (I need a little breathing room around my spaces. Trust me on this.)
Presentation:
It may help to restore trust if you share a little of your story. Whatever you’re comfortable with. But it’s about this context, and your experiences. Contribute to the conversation. Make it personal. Listen. Sympathise.
It can be genuinely difficult at first, but it does get easier.
Oh, and if you’re tempted to post anything even remotely demanding or inquisitive – give us a few days to recover, please.
P.S. If you shorten the length of your posts, you’ll get early feedback, before you overwhelm people with content. The responses will likely be less intense. But, again, I may be wrong.
P.P.S. Oh, and whenever I see the word “impartial”, I can’t help but see someone suffering under the delusion of rationalism. Do you understand postmodern theory or deconstructionist critiques? (In your industry, I think the closest equivalents would be witness/source bias, or journalistic bias. You could be subject to both.)
Whatever your metanarrative, the fact remains that you’ve pretty convincingly outed yourself as being close enough to events to receive far more information than most on this thread. (In comparison: I live a long way away, I’ve read some books, been around a bit, and I inflicted and had inflicted on me some poor patterns. And despite this disconnection, I would never dare claim to be impartial.)
Given both epistemology and recent posts, I would personally react better if you dropped the pseudonym. But please do it in a transparent way. (If it was me, I’d make a self-deprecating reference in my first post under a new name…)
AnImpartialObserver:
I would like to respond to your comments because I think they shed light on a crucial misunderstanding on what this conversation is about.
1. You’re not being asked to accept any narrative. You’re just being invited to listen to the narrative of others and share yours.
2. Your desire to see proof has a way of dismissing their narrative and derailing the conversation to a fact-finding venture.
3. It’s not a place where you can get answers to historical questions. Although some people are sharing those, it’s only because it is a part of their story that has been silenced or marginalized or dismissed for so long.
4. I’ve seen this so many times before that I recognize it immediately. I talk a lot about authenticity with accountability. I claim to provide safe spaces for people to be authentically themselves. But some unwell people understand this to mean that they are unaccountable, free to hurt other people, make demands, be rude, be demeaning and even be abusive. When they are challenged on it, they immediately reply, “You said this was a safe space but obviously you were lying because you’re trying to control and change me! I don’t feel safe here!” In fact, some people test the space’s safety by doing things they know will hurt people just to prove there is no safe haven on earth for anyone and that if we just give them one minute inside that space with these people, they will swiftly destroy their illusion of safety.
5. When a room of people react to some things you’ve said, shouldn’t our first inclination be to examine ourselves and see if we did hurt them? Several people have responded to you but you persisted in your hurtful behavior. Then, when you started to realize your defense wasn’t holding up, you became a victim, persecuted, a martyr. But it’s not about you. The others wanted you to understand that this was a safe space to share and hear stories while you were demanding proof. Rather than apologize and change your behavior, you changed your strategy from “I want to see documents!” to “Poor me!” It’s just another way of derailing the conversation to your own agenda rather than the democratic narrative process that is already occurring.
6. I’m thinking of an analogy. Let’s say we are in a room listening to the harrowing stories of war rape victims. But someone in the room keeps demanding pap tests results, police reports, photos, documented rapist’s confessions, and an objective, unemotional, orderly account of the events, etc… can you see how destructive that would be to the conversation, but also to the spirits of those victims? Plus, can’t you see how people might even suspect that person was some kind of an official plant, sent there to disrupt the narrative, infuse insecurity, doubt, and fear in the victims, maybe even arouse sympathy for the rapists, and somehow dismiss their experience? In most cases like this the victims, more than wanting justice (which is often impossible), just want to be heard so they can integrate their trauma into their lives and move on.
You’ve shown your hand I think. I’m not sure how you can recover this. Can you get your mind around this? Or do you have other intentions? We’re still here, talking and listening.