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
Brad Cecil,
I went through each and every email from that time. I never called you first of all, that was a lie. I do not have one email from you. Not one. I emailed you leaders to tell you this thing was off rails. And, do you care? Your partner is off rails? You did not respond. No one responded but Mark saying I was “paranoid.” “Shouting into the hurricane.” The response? Mark Scandrette walking into my bedroom while I napping with my 3 year old, and in only a robe directing me to “pack a bag.”
ReliStuPhD, Lost Voice,
We will support you no matter how much or how little information you wish to reveal. (And there are quieter places to share with understanding people, if you want to share non-publicly.)
This is another human dignity often trampled by the church: the right to disclose as much or as little as you wish, and still be welcomed, encouraged, supported.
I’ve lost track of the number of times I’ve looked back and thought “I wish I’d said: ‘No, you don’t need to know that.’”
Many people ask out of cluelessness or curiosity. Or a mistaken idea it will help.
But it’s so easy for excess information to be turned into a rod to beat people with…
Julie, in a post I now can’t find, you asked me if I was a member of AXXESS. No, the church I was with was not in the emergent movement,* just flirting with it (apparently quite literally for some). Tony came to speak to us and, as I said above, came across as an arrogant prick. (It’s actually a funny story because he was swinging his academic bona fides around, trying to impress, apparently unaware that the group he was speaking had an unusually high ratio of M.Div/Th.M./PhD members (over 50%)). He basically shot himself in the foot at the time, though some continued to flirt with the man’s ideas (in Perry’s case, with the actual man). The church is now “emergent.” :P
I hope you don’t mind that I’m not actually revealing the name of the church. I don’t think we were close enough to the movement to actually have had a part in this beyond simply being another place for Jones and Perry to have mingled, and I need to maintain some anonymity since I occasionally encounter those folks.
For clarity, because it has been asked of me to do so. Not sure what it proves…
1. I was at Christanity 21. I attended. First thing I attended that was connected to the other group of people known as Emergent. I had no clue of what Julie shared. There was no way for me to have known. I was there on my own. Did not know a lot of people. A handful would not even be accurate. All the people there, with the exception of 2 guys I know from The OOZE were there. Not sure what this proves??? But it was asked and since I was asked, here it is.
2. Yes, Tony and I had a major run in. Not giving details because the fact is, he did apologize. It seemed sincere. It helped me heal and moved on from it. Not sure what this has to do with anything either. I have not said any to slight him because I do not have a personal bone with him. My bone is with covering up abuses that have been done. I have not mentioned the persons responsible because I’m sure it is documented some where on the web. I could not say where but I know for a long while I did publicly say what happened. I am not using their names not mine because I have that right and the right to relate to others who have similar experiences.
So….there it is.
You have nothing to apologize for. You were in hell. I knew you cared.
I don’t know if emergent is dead or not. I don’t care. It’s dead to me.
It was a lie.
I was a good soldier who wanted to be liked and accepted. What I needed was therapy, Xanax and a hug, what I got was toxins.