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, I have read this entire thread over the past 4 days and I am almost speechless. My heart aches for you but I am so proud of you! How anyone could support, minister with or be a part of any conference or publishing/blog with your ex husband, who writes about a “legal wife and a spiritual wife,” is beyond me. That is just plain old fleshly, lustful crap, in the guise of spirituality. I am sorry for what you have had to endure. Thank you for being brave enough to speak up and speak the truth.
So leaders knowing about this are negligent to allow them to stay leading.
It has been grueling to read through this entire thread. Talk about “triggers!” Wow! Julie your story has obviously opened up space for others to process their pain, their questions, even their doubts. I am so sorry this happened to you. Is there any redeeming value in telling our stories? I think so. I am intimately acquainted with what happens when one is married to someone with NPD, and what happens when one is in a workplace setting with a full-blown narcissist. It has seemed to me that until you are personally harmed by narcissistic behaviors (or the fallout) you don’t really “get it.” That is why posts like the one from Sarah Cunningham emerge. She may be a very nice, very intelligent woman (I have no idea who she is ) but she is obviously unaware (as Brother Maynard pointed out very well) of the fact that some of the “nicest” people you’ll ever work with can be quite sick inside. The illness is demonstrated in this high capacity for putting on a persona that is calculated to bring the narcissist exactly what he or she craves: a mirror that only reflects what they want to believe themselves to be. What is that? They want to believe they are AWESOME. Threaten that image, and you will quickly find yourself on the murderous side of the narcissist’s personality. I have never been so quickly hated, defamed, cut off from friends and family, lied about in private circles when I am not present in order to alter others’ perception of me, etc etc, as when I have threatened the facade of a narcissist. Some of us do this unknowingly and the experience is even more perplexing. Others, having seen a chink in the narcissist’s armor, perhaps tried to say something because that’s what good people do—you know, point something out nicely in hope of healing or reconciliation— only to find out that healthy, real relationship is not on the “do-do” list of a narcissist. The one, the only, the ultimate goal is to make sure that the only thing reflecting back when the narcissist looks around a room (or a blog) is “this guy/gal is AWESOME.” The narcissist is so focused on this that they will “admit to” something just to be awesomely humble or transparent or whatever. But it is all bullshit aimed at maintaining an image. There can be no real relationship with a narcissist. All you can hope for is mutual admiration and image-polishing (if you want to get into that scene).
Claire asked what kind of personality is susceptible to getting tangled up with a narcissist. I would say the number one soft-spot in the armor is oddly this very same trait: the desire to be “seen as.” Seen as nice. Seen as up-and-coming. Seen as loveable. Seen as making-a-difference. Seen as on the “right side” of every issue. Seen as faithful. The need to be “seen as” is a need the narcissist is expert at fulfilling for you, as long as you return the favor with unfailing loyalty.
So no, this thread is not about two people and the details of their divorce. This thread is about what happens when narcissist-meets-world, a world that tends to divide into two groups on impact: the ones who need to be awesome, and the ones who figure there are other more pressing needs in the world.
hm. i didn’t see it as undefined. i deleted it anyway. thanks!
I now see that both comments (unedited and edited) are attributed to me. It is the first one that I would like to have deleted.