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
The saga continues. I’m very thankful to David for hosting this conversation, and for everyone who has demonstrated a commitment to truth. And I believe truth will always win out over lies and deceit in the end.
FWIW, I was highly suspicious of “Impartial Observer” right from his/her first comment. Not saying he/she was or is involved with the EV group, but certainly there was enough there to suggest that trust should not be extended.
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.
Again, apologies if this is off-topic and/or a naive question.
I’ve really behaved myself and said nothing for the past couple hundred comments. That was really hard to do when Danielle chimed in, and certain others. But.
Let’s just clear a few things up, shall we?
@Partially-Alex and other challengers of Julie’s narrative:
If an unnamed person who received a help request from Julie has forwarded it to you, this is a breach of a pastoral confidence, and does not exhibit good pastoral care in any way, shape, or form. There might possibly be reason for the email to be forwarded to you if it’s part of your story as well as Julie’s… but even then, that’s highly suspect. Remember, it’s third-party correspondence being shared here. Am I the only one noticing that even the half-apologies and criticisms of Julie or of this forum generally are tending to prove the point and provide additional evidence about what was going on and the character of those involved? Anyone? If you’re concerned about about naming names with accusations, have the forthrightness to provide your own name. Your real one. (And for the record, when Tony went off on me in ‘08-9 about things said on my blog, part of the vitriol he spewed had to do with me being an “anonymous” blogger. In point of fact, I blog under a pseudonym, which is a different thing, and I’ve used it for more than a decade. Those who know my blog know me, and they know my real name, which has not been hidden. If you need to know, follow the link.) If you’re so concerned to get all the facts, please show it by scanning at least Julie’s comments here and perhaps a few others. Julie’s side of the story has been presented here, it’s just spread through several comments. A painful personal account typically comes out that way. Deal with it. If you insist on reviewing evidence, you’re turning this into a legal affair. It is not, as has been stated multiple times. If you want this to take legal form, the response is “asked and answered”, see previous point. You’re also showing an inclination to make this about a divorce case. Again, see above: you’ve missed the point. Documentation for Julie’s claims does exist. Some of it is public, and some of it has been provided to specific individuals who have weighed in on this thread. In short, other people in this conversation have reviewed this evidence as well as the public court documents and verified that these are consistent with her claims here. Given that much of it is private, most people here can rest assured in the knowledge that if her claims did not hold up against this evidence, these people would speak out publicly here and/or privately to Julie. This is a safe space, but I believe it’s also one where clear falsehood would be called out… isn’t that part of making it safe in the first place? If you don’t feel a blog is the “right” place for this kind of conversation, then you don’t really understand this space, this conversation, or the nature of the wrongs that have been perpetrated. Your discomfort stems from the fact you don’t feel this forum is controllable enough, and as has been pointed out, silence or threatened silence is another way to attempt to control the narrative.Now, if you still have an objection, share it – but PLEASE come up with something new. I for one am getting tired of the same old pattern.
It seems to me that by the time we’re approaching 900 comments, it seems generally accepted that TJ is an a** diagnosed with NPD, he had an affair, and he attempted to cover it up with a smear campaign against Julie, and involved Doug Pagitt and others. Some of the people he enlisted were duped or manipulated into unwitting participation. (And guess what? If you knew those rumours were out there but you weren’t part of a campaign, you just witnessed/testified to the fact that it was actually happening. If you repeated it even unwittingly, you became part of the campaign. That’s how it works.) In the mix, it seems pretty clear that there’s a lot of pain caused by Emergent abuse, whether directly within EV or not, just like the Industrial Church Complex they were supposedly reforming. There were affairs and rumours of affairs involving leaders, broken marriages, spiritual abuse, the whole gamut.
C.S. Lewis said that friendship was born of the moment when one person says to another, “What, you too? I thought I was the only one!” On that basis, it seems there are many budding friendships here, and by the grace of God, I hope these begin to lead to healing.
Because that’s what this is about.
Just one last comment, I promise: I just want to say that I agree with you ReliStuPhD. I was far too demanding in my first post. My first inclination was to ask Julie first whether she would be willing to field some questions before actually asking them and not just hit her with them all up front. For some stupid reason I opted for the latter approach. I wish I had gone with my gut and been more patient and respectful. I’m deeply sorry for that. I can see why you all would have been suspicious of my intentions because of that error in judgment.
Ug. “Mea culpa.” :P
At the risk of interjecting where it may not be my place…
I agree with the initial observation that AnImpartialObserver was not so impartial. That initial thread was overly demanding and a bit too suggestive. However, his/her subsequent responses have appeared to me as something of a genuine new culpa. Perhaps something of a reset is in order? (Or perhaps I’m just being a bit too naïve here)