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
Donna, please do feel free to tell your story – here, or in whatever place is best (most comfortable, safe) for you.
There are forums like TLS where you can share in private, or sharing here will help us all understand not only your story, but the bigger picture of destructive church patterns.
We will listen. We will support you.
Donna McDaniel! I know you messaged me and I want to write back but I’m writing here because THIS is a safe place for you to tell your story and be supported. There is a toxic culture amongst the author/speaker/conference minor xian celebrity sect where they feel justified in bull dozing over people and discarding them like they are disposable trash. It’s wrong! And then to carry on in the mix like nothing ever happened. Join me in The Lasting Supper on line community of post church toxicity survivors. Or tell your story here…we’re listening.
“This thread has so much misinformation, inference, innuendo and commentary that I think it needs to be addressed and I will at a later date when I have time.”
_____________________________________________
TRANSLATION:
Everything in this thread is true and I hate it that it is coming out in a manner beyond my control. But I need more time to spin this to my favor and need to consult with people of like mind to formulate a lawyered response.
Thank you Brad. Thank you for what you are trying to do here. (I tip toe in to say this.) This all needs to happen for God to heal his Church. I’ve been praying for it for 12 years since my own marriage failed in much the same way as Julie’s, though not on such a large public stage. (Mine was a small semi-private stage, though it reached world wide.) But I’d begun to loose hope that God would ever deal with it. It’s still a cancer and still out there in the form of many unrepentant “ministers” still being allowed to carry on as if their choices meant nothing (as if their unrepentant lives don’t affect everything they touch). And there are a lot of still hurting abuse survivors who’s lives, callings, and ministries were derailed….some of whom are trying to figure out how to find their way back to where they should be….while most have probably given up altogether. I know my Ex is still out there in the mix, still undetected for the lies he’s told in order to keep his place “ministering” to emerging church leaders. I think you know him. Though I doubt you know his real story. I think I might have met you in Austin Texas, February…was it 2000, or 2001? My last name was Fernandez back then. I don’t know if this is the place…but if not here, then where?
I came into the conversation now known as Emergent in the late 1990’s. I was very involved at The OOZE specifically in the forums. At the time the conversation has no name or any leaders. To be honest there were no writers with books. The only word used a lot was "postmodern " and/or PoMo. (This is one way I know who hung at The OOZE back then) We debated, deconstructed, and learned. No one had the intention of labeling it. It was what it was. It was the environment. Palmolive, we were soaking in it.
There were Mars Hill people there. They did not last long. In my estimation now I would put them in the Emergent label, but not OF the conversation.
Now there is where those of us who were at The OOZE and those who later a part of the Emergent Village happens. Those who came from the ooze saw the whole deal as a conversation. There were no leaders. We were all a part of a larger community and trying to live out spirituality in a Postmodern climate. Emergents or Emergent Village was and is a collection of people in specific ministry roles, church planters, and pastors. There are main leaders who develop and voice what the Emergent people are about. Two VERY different ideas here.
I said this back in 2003 or so, that the label Emergent was the beginning of the slow fall for the conversation. This thread is evidence of what I warned about. People wanted to label it, put certain people up as leaders and then have no accountability. This is why there are stories like mine, Julie’s, Pat’s daughter and many MANY more. Emergent Village even had a gathering of their elite around 2009 or 2010, I believe??? They still deflected that this was a leadership meeting. In fact it was. They even post blogs about decisions made by them for Emergent. It is funny to me that when you try to confront the abuse to these people there are no rules and get over it attitudes. Yet, when silenced people finally go public in a blog (which I did in my blog I no long have.) or in comments (such as here) there are suddenly RULES and obligations.
Emergent people want their cake and eat it too. Always have and always will. They will not admit it because they are blind to it. It is frustrating as hell. They feel they can live by a certain unknown set of rules. God help you if you break one of these rules.
BTW: the rule I broke? I spoke out and said there needed to be more women of color speaking. I always challenged Emergent speakers to stop talking about LGBTQ. To let LGBTQ take the platform. To use their power to help a minority. Yeah, pure evil I was.