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
Why not? Because your recent responses, and those of several others here, have made it clear to me that this blog is not quite the safe space that I thought it was. I posted with sincere intentions and a sympathetic inclination towards you, and yet almost every response I’ve gotten from folks here so far has been filled with suspicion, assumption, and insult. I’m a bit slow on the uptake, and clearly not the best with my own use of proper blog etiquette (I really am quite grateful Tim for your advice on that), but I finally figured out that my questions were not really welcome here. I see now how they may have been deemed inappropriate, and for that I apologize, though I still don’t think they warranted quite the level of hostility I’ve received. So, even though I fully realize that at this point declining to give my full name will be interpreted as actually having something to hide (I really do not), I guess I just don’t feel safe enough with those of you here to risk it anymore.
Your inability to offer your last name seems really fishy. Message it to me through Facebook if you want to remain more private. Alex the journalist who is an Impartial Observer. I’ll be waiting for that.
Alex. I asked for your last name. You said you are a journalist and I am curious. I invited you to come over and I’ll give you ten minutes to have your doubts assuaged perusing my laptop. So, if I am opening my home I think it is wise to ask your last name. Mine is McMahon. What is yours?
Then why not share your last name? I’m open. Are you? I’m not angry. I asked what your last name is. What is it?
Ah, yes, I see. Now it’s my turn to be lumped in with all the “villains” on this thread too. Sorry, but when you put it that way, it doesn’t really make me inclined to want to share more about myself with you. No, I’m not any of those other people you named (I don’t even know who some of them are… Carla?). And no I’m not out to get you. I am sympathetic to everything you’ve shared. But I can tell I’ve offended and angered you, so I’ll respectfully bow out now. I’m very sorry to have caused any more discomfort for you.