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
@impartialobserver is employing the same tactics the emergent boys used to cyberbully me. Nothing new. It’s how they roll. SNAFU. :)
@matybigfro Apology accepted. A major factor in my admitted outbursts was incredulity that people I thought were friends kept pulling Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde moves after they got a taste of the media spotlight. As I had covered Xn carnage for the Door from 1994 till the rag shut down the website in 2008, I “thought” (silly me) that they’d welcome my critique so they could avoid becoming like those branded Christian celebrities/religious rock stars we had both satirized only to become that which they once despised once they hit the author/speaker circuit. Also, as noted, I apologized for those times when my anger got the better of me but in hindsight, I see I was exhibiting signs of prologued trauma and abuse not signs of mental illness (like most of NYC I got tested post 9/11 and there’s no signs of mental illness though my childhood growing up with two alcoholic parents who died before I was 18 does produce some triggers that I now know how to manage so I don’t let my anger get the better of me).
I would ask though that I not be lumped with Stephanie/SCCL – while her critiques of Tony are spot on, she has gone gonzo on those women who dared to also critique Pete and Jay especially during the whole Phyllis Tickle debacle – these three boys’ history of on and offline bullying is godawful. You can’t separate one from the other – it all needs to be exposed and called on the carpet. I know all too well how difficult it is to realize that someone who was once a peer and perhaps even a friend is now part of this bully brigade. It truly is akin to watching someone succumb to drugs/alcohol as the person you once knew simply isn’t there anymore. And if you don’t see what I’m referencing, it’s because they’re putting on their Dr. Jekyll face hoping you’ll continue to endorse and support them. But watch because the moment you critique their Xn crapola Mr. Hyde comes out with a vengeance.
Speaking of coming out, notice all the US emergent players and those who ply their wares who are silent during this debate. Also, be sure to check out the funding streams of those offering half-ass apologies, non-apologies and gaslighting Julie (and a few others on this thread). That speaks volumes.
Actually I prefer Philosophical Pastor’s response more than mine! :)
AnImpartialObserver… my ass. As I read your lengthy deposition-style post I felt like vomiting. What royal “we” are you referring to who would so “appreciate” Julie getting on the defensive and offering fact-check details ? Good grief. I get that all are welcome here, so whatever….but I wouldn’t trust you with my phone number.
You sound anything but impartial, Animpartialobserver. Perhaps if you reveal who you actually are, rather than pretend impartiality, your questions might be worth a response.
“Living separately” metaphorically because his ridiculous travel as a minor celebrity xian speaker author. We were never separated. He was police escorted out before school 2008. Is this Courtney? Carla? See, what I DO know is that he is very good at getting others to do things for him while sitting back and seeming blameless. I will go over each line item for you but I need time to answer each and every question. I’m afraid your un-impartial is showing.