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—yes, I get it, and I’m so sorry for what you went through. :(
My mother: http://taylorjoyrecovers.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/dear-sheldon-a-story-of-maternal-abuse/
My father: http://www.bpdcentral.com/blog/?The-Day-I-Realized-My-Father-Was-a-Narcissist-39
reading up on some of Donna’s comment’s and the similarities in the way’s their stories has been silenced and marginalized and it reminded me of the piece Stephanie Drury at SCCL wrote on misogyny within the progressive church. I have to admit I’d read allot of the arguments (I find allot of these movement relationship dynamics fascinating from a sociological and psychological perspective as well as having endured my own share of toxic faith communities that have left me with a perverse fascination with researching what is going on).
I remember allot of the online scuffles that have been mentioned above, particularly clear in my memory was Tony’s Where are the Women post and Stephany Drury’s continued calling out of him at SCCL, Becky Garrison’s calling out Emergent and then Outlaw Preachers played across a thousand blog comments and FaceBook and I only caught a little of the heat from Bill and Bro Manyard but picked up allot of the Fallout from Andrew Jones blogg int he aftermath.
I remember reading and often thinking Stephanie and Becky’s criticisms too harsh, too personal and too emotional. What I recognize now was the ingrained misogyny which discounts the testimony and accounts of women and favors the arguments of the men in the mix. I’ve apologized elsewhere but I feel here is also as good as anywhere for that. I remember disagreeing at times with both of them online (although sometimes also agreeing) I’m no-one and not even in the conversation anymore I don’t believe and just spectate allot of what goes on these day’s but I wanna own my own misogyny as I continue to try and unpick and leave it behind. To those who i didn’t hear or listen to well enough, I’m truly sorry.
What I think is equally important as the discussion of abuse should be the recognition and discussion about the completely ingrained misogyny within Christina Culture that is often a help maid to those committing this abuse. If we listened to and respect women’s voices as much as we did men (Danica illustrated so clearly above) then some of this would never have gone on as long as it has.
If a Woman voice and opinion was valued as much as a man’s then a ‘discernment’ process would never have been entered into without the presence of the Woman’s testimony.
A Woman’s pain would have been valued and listened to more than a man’s continued productivity and usefulness, follow would have been committed to rather than left up to others.
A Woman’s continued cry’s for redress, for recognition of her abuse and situation would not have been repeatedly ignored or simply written off as ‘crazyness’
This misogyny was clearly as present in EV as it was in MH and probably has been here, only be naming and accepting that is the case can we hope to move on in a way that is free from it’s odious influence.
Tim, thank you for responding so kindly. I am SO sorry that you were falsely accused, and I apologize for anything I said that may have triggered you.
However, your (kind, empathetic, caring) response demonstrates an unfortunate naivete about PD’s. :(
They manipulate. They are masters of false repentance. They know how to turn on tears, and minutes later, lash out. They require intensive, long-term therapy to recover (a minimum of FOUR YEARS). They have a firm, entrenched belief that everyone else is the problem, not them, which means that type of intense therapy is rare. There are no medications for such false belief systems, though often an underlying biological issue is the cause of the crappy perceptions.
If I sound clinical and detached, it’s because I AM. I was raised by the fun-loving family known as a “narcissistic/borderline” couple.
Rarely is someone with a personality disorder able to take serious responsibility for their own actions. You are right in that they DO NOT need to be in leadership—yet cluster B’s have a knack for being high-functioning and charismatic. I did not intend for my metaphors to imply a purge. Rather, I ACHE for the day when the church as a whole understands the destructive nature of these PD’s for what they are. :(
Thanks for responding.
Taylor Joy Young-You really get it! It is a cancer. The destruction and ruined relationships is so far reaching. When you put two of them in co-leadership and in “Christian” business together….stand back. Nothing but scorched earth remaining. Anything and anyone in their way will be steamrollered over and or exploited to their benefit.
Taylor Joy Young,
I have been accused (and yes, accused is the right word) multiple times of having a personality disorder (despite a complete lack of any diagnosis), by people who were completely unqualified. It’s an unpleasant process every time.
I understand your passion to protect and care for people, and I’m going to assume that you’re speaking in good faith.
But we don’t need a witch hunt, or even a surgical removal of the people with genuine, severe, unmanaged personality disorders. (Some of your metaphors might suggest these responses.)
Can I suggest instead:
If a person has any kind of issues that prevent them from caring for people (or lead them to damage people), they must be removed from leadership (broadly construed) as a way of caring for them. (This isn’t a punishment.) The scriptures are pretty clear that family issues fall within this category, as do sustained personality issues.
They should be encouraged to continue to attend church, again as a way of caring for them.
They should be encouraged to seek appropriate help (diagnosis, professional assistance) as needed, as a way of caring for them.
There must then be a period of reflection for the person and the church. Years, perhaps. (A year, at least!)
Then, there can be moves to verify the management of the person’s condition, and work out if it could be managed in a church leadership context, and, if so, whether the church is willing to do so. Many churches will, wisely, choose not to go there.
Of course, we would all hope that it would never come to this – that people would (be encouraged to) seek help early and often. But this is clearly not the case.
I think you’re right though: you don’t love anyone by ignoring the fact that leaders are hurting people. (You’d think the church would have worked that out by now…)