Tony Jones on Mark Driscoll: What came first, the thug or the theology?

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. 

chicken or the egg cartoon nakedpastor david hayward

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. 

Back to blog

1079 comments

I want to add my thanks to those in this thread, especially Julie for her willingness to share her story and David for his willingness to host a safe place. I’ve been involved in emerging stuff since the 90s, before there was a term for it, but here on the west coast. I’ve never been part of Emergent narrowly defined, attending only one conference, one that hosted Moltmann in 2009. I’ve made emergent and Moltmann areas of study, with a book coming out in early 2015.

I open with my story of experiences with the movement, where I was burned out with it before Brian McClaren’s book really took the publishing world by storm. I was burned out because I realized even then that the rhetoric didn’t match the practices. Leaders easily drifted into authoritarianism or justifying their ego’s whims with spiritualized language. I know and know of so many who burned out, a friend featured in a major book even died of an overdose when life got out of control.

This is all important here because at the core of what emerging messsages stood for was no more of the status quo, no more shoving things into “private,” no more leader-dominating communities. I know enough to know there really are communities that are living this out even now. But it seems that early group didn’t fare so well in navigating the transitions, even as they promoted some great suggestions. Great theory can hide a lot of dysfunction, because they can always point to the ideals.

This kind of thread is important because it is freeing, it shines light, it makes that which is already public (court cases, conferences, etc.) into a really open discussion that really does matter. How do people treat those who have something they want? Or are seemingly preventing something they want? That’s where reality meets rhetoric, and I’ve been very saddened by the responses to Julie here by those in leadership. I can understand having different perspectives. What I don’t get is the angry defensiveness that is about defending territory. I’ve been called out by people and I think even in disagreement we are to show grace and invitation, not dismissal and diminishment. But that’s all I’ve seen. Julie, in contrast, has shown herself to be responsive, apologizing, opening doors, and creating a space where others can voice their own stories.

I don’t claim to know all the background or the whole story. We do know basic facts and those point towards issues of concern, concern because trust and loyalty and commitment are not throwaway traits whenever temptations strike. Those are worth talking about because they strike at the claimed rhetoric and the responses here make the claimed rhetoric even more seemingly disingenuous.

We’re called to be open not dismissive, people of confession not people who justify our yearnings of either physical or vocational victories. We’re called to be people who help free others, not tie them up and commit them to emotional or legal bondage.

This is too long, but I want to end with something I wrote about Moltmann’s theology a while back, which is very relevant for at least 2 of the players here, who have published claiming his works as defining for them. This thread makes me wonder how much that is true in fact.

“[In Moltmann’s theology] the comprehensive work of the Spirit interacts with humanity in pervasive ways, calling each person to a renewed relationality and an emphasis of life over death in their particular contexts. In all situations, the Spirit leads towards that which expresses life and leads away from that which expresses death. For humanity, then, the soul crushing affects of domination, restriction and limitation are fought against.

“This is a liberating work of the Spirit, who liberates the oppressed from their oppression, and liberates the oppressors from their oppressing, leading all to a new relationship of equality and freedom, in which each person is fully able to be who they were created to be without having to define themselves over and against others.

The perichoretic movement of God, in the power of the Spirit, enables a new way of living, calling forth “a broad place where there is no cramping,” a holistic expression of eschatological life in which the freedoms of God are expressed in passionate and creative freedom. It is, indeed, a dance, a dance of life, a dance of hope, a dance of freedom and invigorating friendships. This liberating call leads people to hope in a new way of living, one that calls them forth to express this new life, and which, in places of restriction, causes the chains of repression to chaff and be resisted.

For Moltmann, this work of the Spirit is highlighted in the life and work of Christ, with Moltmann emphasizing a strong spirit-Christology, in which the power of the Spirit is seen as influential and defining throughout the whole life of Christ, especially in the cross and in the resurrection. This work of the Spirit means that Christ is also with us in our suffering, sharing the same Spirit, able to communicate the hope and empathy of Christ’s historical experiences into the contexts of our experiences, so that Christ is a brother to us in our suffering and a redeemer for us in our salvation.

We do not have to be defined by the restrictions placed on us by others, but in the Spirit we are defined anew by Christ, given freedom in a renewed identity, that calls forth our creativity and contributions, calling us to live life in a way that enables others, indeed the whole world, to find their own freedom and participation."

Patrick O

I read the Tony Jones blog post (and some of his comments here). The idea that “this could’ve happened to any of us,” seemed to be referring to himself, Brian McLaren, and the other guy mentioned, ?Brad Cecil. I didn’t see where he meant any of us in the sense of “There but for the grace of god….” I don’t know much about Jones, but he gives off THAT vibe. You know, the one where he is superior because he is American, Christian, caucasian, and has a penis. A guy like that could be in the same shoes Driscoll is in now.

Rhonda

I wrote a post today inspired by this post… about providing safe spaces for us to process our anger, etc.:
www.nakedpastor.ehermitsinc.com/2014/09/are-you-so-angry-at-the-church-you-could-spit-nails/

David Hayward

Julie, you wrote “So leaders knowing about this are negligent to allow them to stay leading.” I am not sure whose comment you are referring to so I apologise if I am mis-interpreting what “this” you are referring to. I think unfortunately it is not as straightfoward as neglecting to fire someone or make them “step down” (gotta love that image-preserving language, eh?) Narcissism, being both a mental illness and a manifestation of brokenness in the human being, means we are all “snake-bit” to some degree and so we are also, to one degree or another, always co-participants in the perpetuation of the disease (to use disease metaphorically). I am only speaking from my own experience now, but I have found that the most effective thing I can do in response to being wounded, harassed, punished, “messed with” and so on by persons who have made narcissism something of an art in their own lives, is to avoid letting those wounds become my own “narcissistic wounds.” I perpetuate the disease when the wounds inflicted by a narcissist become a reason for me to become the center of my own universe, when I only talk to people who affirm my wounds and lash out along with me at those who inflicted them, when I develop an “us vs them” mentality… it all starts to look like nothing more than the mirror image of those damn narcissists out there that hurt me. I want to be Well, not merely affirmed. Affirmation only goes so far. Then I have to figure out what to do with these wounds that are disabling and contagious, that I didn’t ask for but now are mine to deal with. Ya, I’m super angry at so many things: how this could have happened, how nobody seemed to care, how so many seemed to be “duped” and how virtually no one has ever apologised to me for what happened. It would be wonderful to hear “I’m sorry” from the people who have injured me, and my kids, in an effort (knowingly or unknowingly, intentionally or unintentionally) to either protect their own image or the image of someone who is protecting their image… but I am pretty sure it won’t happen. Most of those people probably don’t even think about me anymore. Nobody thinks about my own wounds more than me. Jesus comes in a close second.
It is true that good healthy leadership will recognize narcissistic traits and behavior and make efforts to root it out. However, it has been my direct observation in the workplace that this is far easier said than done. Usually the narcissist is there in the first place because of a system that has made it easy for them to “get in” and has probably entangled quite a few people into the web already. The negligence, therefore, goes back further, at the point of hiring the narcissistic individual, and assumes the hiring committee or person was healthy enough to know the person was sick. That is a lot to assume these days, unfortunately. I know I sound pretty glum and pessimistic. Sorry :( I just think narcissism is a systemic and epidemic problem that rivals any ebola virus. You can go in thinking you’re going to fight it, and end up infected yourself. It scares the shit out of me, honestly.

philosophicalpastor

@Nathan, I really appreciate your willingness to forthrightly speak your opinion, but then at the same time have a listening posture to those who disagree! Thank you. Also, I would add that there are probably a lot of people who read your ambiguous ‘some people in the thread’ as directly about them (as I did), when that’s not who you meant at all. Lots of us grew up thinking everything was our fault in some way or the other, and so any ambiguous accusation like that is immediately internalized. A few years ago that comment would have sent me into the shame spiral and shut me down (although I’m totally not trying to shame you here – just offering perspective! Like I said, I love your openness, coupled with your willingness to speak your truth)

And I also echo NP – I love what’s happening here :) So much healing. So glad we didn’t all just go away and STFU as suggested (in not so many words) by the detractors earlier on!

Danica

Leave a comment