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
Julie, I write this as someone who knows nothing about divorce law and the ways of child support disputes. If what I’m about to write is old news, already taken care of in the law, great.
I find the disparity between your multiple court cases dealing with insufficient child support because of your ex’s inability to pay one one hand, and your attestation of his lifestyle on the other, difficult to make sense of. So I wonder….are there ways he can route income to his sacramental wife or to family or friends that make it look like he has insufficient income for child support?
Again, this is probably dealt with in the law and I’m aware of my naivete.
Could his share of conference revenue be assigned to someone else? Could speaking fees be assigned to someone else? Maybe not. But if it’s possible that his sacramental-not-legal wife is receiving income for his labors, it would be possible for him to be a paper pauper while enjoying a nice lifestyle via his wife’s extra income.
Or could he be provided with debit cards or credit loaded by others, be it family and/or friends? The lifestyle could be funded by the cards while maintaining little official income from which you could draw child support.
Perhaps these are silly ideas, far from the truth, and maybe he is genuinely living in a restricted financial context. It would be sad and unjust if he WERE able to re-route income to an off-ledger person and cause your children to subsist in a deficient manner.
Just wondering aloud….
Also, if they (the 6) are innocent and mere victims of a Narcissist machinations, then I do and DID apologize both publicly and privately. Truly, sorry. I will never know what they did or did not know and when they knew it. I do know there are dirty hands, and there was an abuse of power by Pastors in leadership. I am not sure of who exactly. 3 of them I am confident were aware of the issues and attempted to have me slienced and discredited as crazy.
Van Rue: “Tony Jones terrible abuse, adultery, neglect should fall under church discipline. His attempt to justify that with heresy is disgusting and shameful. Tony if you read this I humbly urge you in Christ Jesus to repent. To seek God and fully reconcile with the truth first, and those you have hurt second… and submit to living loving, truthful and faithful life in Christ.” True. “But I am suspicious now because Julie refuses to release it.” Never once have I ever said I refuse to release it. I will attach it here if there was an attach function. Message me and I’ll freely send it to you or anyone. BRad Cecil has it….why doesn’t he post it. I hold nothing back.
Sincerely, Julie
(second part)
Groupthink makes some members complicit to severe wrongs and others bewildered and withdrawn. It tries to keep as few people “in the know” as possible because ‘gossip’. Minimizing/denying occur without thought because members are (subconsciously) frightened that honesty will destroy the group. Rumors are spread against the outsider, small preemptive actions for protection against the outsider.
When finally confronted with the truth, groupthink becomes fiercely defensive because there’s been too much investment of time/energy to risk a demoralizing tale told by a long-gone outsider. Members will talk urgent among themselves, picking out weaknesses (real/imagined) that can be used to dismiss the complete tale as pathetic and un-actionable.
Thus the black/white thinking you mention will require ever more proof from the outsider and will inevitably conclude that there is nothing at all, not one thing, that any of them can do about any of it because the outsider refuses to offer real honest-to-goodness evidence.
In light of that, those who’ve come here to sort it out with Julie (or who have done so privately) are properly understood as courageous and honorable people.
I would also like you to think about the “two witnesses required” process for a moment. The worst abuse occurs one-on-one. To use extreme egs, how can such a process work with child sexual abuse or rape? How, in a marriage? This scriptural passage is blithely quoted widely these days, a panacea that pushes away immense interpersonal destruction by its thoughtless misuse.
One last personal bit. I am finished with men preaching at women. I am weary of watching men getting praise and comment even in threads like this while women are ignored, reduced to damsels-in-distress, or only allowed the job of maternal-type support. There is no way I would again attend a church that does not, in practice, treat women as peer-humans, and the Emergence movement as ended my long search for it. It is apparently not to be had.
I’ve been thinking further of Van’s comment these last days and have one more lengthy comment to him. (I hope that’s ok, David. If not, I don’t mind deletion.) I’ll split it in two.
I am not part of this group. I am associated with Julie and a few others here only by a common-type experience—-being abused inside the church and then rejected for it. I know only one person a little, Lydia, because we’ve enjoyed conversation together in other comboxes.
What you are labeling groupthink here is a number of people who recognize the thoughts/feelings that come from someone who has been severely abused. There is an underlying response pattern that makes up such states of being. I did not come here assuming that Julie was correct but through reading, I recognized it.
What you are seeing here is not groupthink but a bunch of intelligent scarred individuals who know what they are looking at and understand how important it is for an individual to tell the story and to correct history as far as can be done. This is a well-established ceremony used also by international workers (thinking here particularly of those who functioned as face-to-face formal witnesses to tales of atrocity in South Africa and Chile).
That you do not recognize it indicates that you require more education. I hope you do take the time for it because your own work will be made richer, deeper, clearer.