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
Pat,
No doubt a lawyer’s letter may be in the future but any potential threat needs to be countered with, “we look forward to discovery.” Cowards don’t want the truth to become part of the public record.
Patrick,
I have always appreciated your wisdom in these long-term conversations. As Linda said, thank you for being willing to share your insights here.
We all know the lawyers are coming, right?
The behavior of cowards with big egos who can no longer silence their victims hire lawyers. They go after the Julies and the Davids. They speak of flat churches but will go after what they perceive to be the head to silence the body.
Don’t let this be the end. Please please please let this be the beginning.
Thank you for sharing your insights Patrick. They should be given weight and consideration because of your involvement and long history with the emergent movement.
I want to add one more thing. Another reason why this is so important is because abuse, dismissiveness, affairs are so prevalent in the church world, by pastors and theologians. It is crazy how many very, very well known theologians, globally influential, are now said to have had very long lasting or repeated affairs. I know of at least one other very currently popular theologian with rumors swirling about (and because both parties have stayed silent about it, I don’t feel it has been pushed to the front for a conversation). Does that undermine their theology? Maybe. Maybe not. It does undermine their authority. Because their theology wasn’t sufficient to keep them doing what Christ would have them do.
This thread is important because in shining light on this issue and particular cases, it helps others realize that what was overlooked in the past is no longer going to stay in the shadows. Even if someone is tempted to stray, their sense of pride will keep them from doing so as they realize it will become an issue. And maybe that’s enough to keep them moving forward until the background issues (the truly private issues) are themselves resolved, before it becomes public separation and public proclamation (by both sides).
Those who rise in leadership will see the temptations, the failings, the hurts, and may now choose a different path that doesn’t introduce chaos and pain and suffering and alienation. That is a huge step in the renewal of the church. We will no longer look away and make excuses. Would that the church learned this 1000+ years ago.