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
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. If this thread really is only about letting people speak their own truth, and not about exposing the bad behavior of the emergent leadership more broadly, then why even bring those stories up in the first place? That she and other have done so must have misled me into thinking this thread’s purpose was something other than what you’ve said it is David. I thought it was a place where I could finally get some answers about all this shadowy, behind the scenes stuff that apparently has been going on for years. I’m disappointed to see that it’s not. But again my apologies for my misunderstanding.
Fair enough. I guess I misunderstood. There’s still so much about all this that is unclear to me. So many of these comments seem to make vague allusions to incidents that I know nothing about, and yet they are offered as examples in some larger narrative. I guess I’m just confused because I don’t understand the references and thus don’t know exactly what narrative I’m being asked to accept. In the work I do I’m required to always verify my sources, so that’s all I was asking for here. I’d like to be able to see for myself the things of which Julie and others have spoken. I apologize if that offends.
Andrew,
Denver: Since it had only been that morning that you had asked to “crash” at our house, I would have expected you to look for an answer to your question. I appreciate the apology, but I don’t think you would have been so flippant about answering Wolfgang or others of your closer friends. I so looked forward to being able to spend time with you, then I was sick, then you ignored me…after being marginalized by so many already, that hurt. I accept your apology. (But please stop using the “poor communication” excuse, and do something to change this. It’s a sorry excuse for someone who is connecting with people all over the world.)
My daughter: She LOVES your family. She loved spending time with you all. But she HAD hoped to get more out of her time with you. She had hoped she could learn more from you personally about what you did. She was disappointed in that. I do remember that in the end I was able to send Debbie info on her condition and I am glad for that, but what a stressful thing to do, when I never agreed that she should go in the first place. Yes she had reached the magic age of 18. Otherwise I would have absolutely refused. I’m glad she didn’t have a breakdown. I still disagree that it was the right thing to do at that point in time. I was left out of the conversation until 3 days before she left. That was wrong. She avoided a catastrophe and I was glad for that, but I do believe she might be better off today if she had stayed put for a while and worked through some things at home first. By the way, check your messages from her. She lives in the San Fransisco Bay Area, not Portland. Michael Lives in Portland though….did you mean him? Or maybe she wants to travel with you up this way to see YOUR daughter. Just CHECK since you’re not so good at communication.
Wolfgang: Yes he seems better. Sometimes, in someways. But if you believe you’ve heard his full restoration story….you are sadly mistaken I am sure. What makes you think you can trust the story of a liar? If he had truly repented, and truly been restored, wouldn’t I have been a part of that restoration? Even if it was just him writing me a letter to apologize and confess to all the lies? Are you thinking that his “repentance and restoration” started in Spain? Because if that’s what you believe, it is a load of bunk. You believe him now. You also believed him before it all hit the fan. I believed him too. I believed him for a year and a half each time he told me he had cut all ties with Vivien. Each time he told me that, it was a lie. I would LOVE to hear his restoration story. But I bet I never will because it’s probably full of lies and he knows I’d see right through them.
What IS restoration to you anyway? Of course I don’t want the marriage restored. But it sure would have been nice to be able to have a dad to help raise my kids. He’s never been that. He’s been the santa clause who takes Zak a couple of times a year. The last two summers I have asked him to keep him all summer and give me a rest. No. He never has time for that. He still breaks promises to his kids. A lot. My Daughter, the one who loves you guys a lot, did you know she’s homeless right now? Did you know Wolfgang kicked her out of his house two weeks after she moved in with him, because she hadn’t found a job in those first two weeks? You know, she was just 20 years old and had just moved across the country to be with him. She hasn’t been able to make it. She’s need help, all year but he’s too busy with his new family and his new wife wants nothing to do with her. Oh yeah, you might have heard his version of the story, but he’s a liar. He covers his tracks. Yes, I’d say you are right to say it’s still messy.
He may not be as bad as he once was, it’s not that I don’t believe someone can be restored to ministry. He’s just not that person. Not now, maybe never. He’s been a terrible father. Yet he pretends to be a “father to the fatherless”. That’s why the church as a whole is in such a mess, you let guys like him back into the pulpit thinking it’s all okay. It’s not. God wants this stuff cleaned up.
Andrew, I appreciate you. I say these things because you are probably in a position to make changes that matter and I believe you want to do what’s right. But you’ve been so wrapped up in this shit for so long, I don’t think that you can smell it when it’s right under your nose.
Animpartial Observer: You, like so many, fail to understand the nature of this post and comments. I have stated repeatedly that this is simply a safe space for people to share their stories. It’s not a courtroom. It’s not a deposition. It’s just a room where people’s voices are neither censored or censured. Simple as that! Nakedpastor isn’t here to take one person’s side over another. It is here as a place for people to meet and converse and together arrive at truth and reconciliation. What I find fascinating, though, is that as people tell their stories, discerning eyes can detect the thread of truth that is weaving its way through the stories and making itself more evident.
So, no, I will not publish any documents or personal correspondences people share with me outside this blog. They are not the point. That the silenced are giving voice to their stories is the greatest reward for me, and it should be for you.
I hope that helps you get an idea of what’s happening here.
Animpartial Observer @ 6:21 pm reads like it was written by Eddie Haskell from Leave It to Beaver.
" Typically, Eddie would greet his friends’ parents with overdone good manners and often a compliment such as, “That’s a lovely dress you’re wearing, Mrs. Cleaver.” However, when no parents were around, Eddie was always up to no good . . . "