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
I was catching up on my reading today and ran across something Thom Rainer wrote on October 1st about the ‘Fourteen Symptoms of Toxic Church Leaders’ (http://thomrainer.com/2014/10/01/fourteen-symptoms-toxic-church-leaders/).
Here are 10 of the symptoms:
1. They rarely demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit.
2. They seek a minimalist structure of accountability.
3. They expect behavior of others they don’t expect of themselves.
4. They see almost everyone else as inferior to themselves.
5. They have frequent anger outbursts.
6. They say one thing to some people, but different things to others.
7. They are manipulative.
8. They do not allow for pushback or disagreement.
9. They surround themselves with sycophants.
10. They are self-absorbed.
Sure sounds familiar.
Great reflection and quote Sara WG!
Hi-
Thank you all for sharing your thoughts and stories. I have had multiple conversations these past few weeks with people about the importance of this thread.
I’m was reading Traci West’s (a womanist ethicist at Drew University) Disruptive Christian Ethics : When Racism and Women’s Lives Matter. It’s a wonderful text and fits well with many of the themes raised in this conversation.
Julie- I was especially encouraged and thought of you while reading a particular passage because it is about the story of a woman who was assaulted and not believed…and then about the way that it was necessary for there to be a public forum where she could claim and own her experience. Having myself experienced public silencing, sexism, and sexual harassment, I resonate with the need to have a forum to “give witness” to my experiences. Here’s the text from page 62 that speaks to these notions:
“Although it is not directly communicated as such, Yvonne’s testimony also raises a spiritual need that should not be overlooked. Her wish to have her story of violation believed—recognized as true—represents a spiritual concern. Beyond a desire for personal affirmation of her suffering, Yvonne’s story indicates a need to be recognized as a bearer of truth. To be recognized in this way involves not just empathy for her, but also an honoring of the sufferer (Yvonne). Yearning for this kind of recognition represents one element in a common longing for supportive connections with others and reflects a spiritual aspect of our humanity. Public humiliation, like Yvonne endured in the reactions to her childhood rape, which may be a part of the dismissive practices surroundign sexual violation must take place with appreciation of the victim-survivor’s contribution of a counterpublic voice as a valuable societal contribution.”
Thank you again. I have been deeply impacted by this thread.
Kathy Sierra has written http://seriouspony.com/trouble-at-the-koolaid-point/ “Trouble at the Koolaid Point” about her experiences as a woman with online visibility. Harrowing reading, and similar in many ways to the experiences related in this thread.
There’s http://www.wired.com/2014/10/trolls-will-always-win/ a copy at Wired as "Why the Trolls Will Always Win , for when Kathy takes hers down. (She doesn’t want it permanently on her blog. Her choice, after all.)
Similarly, http://mashable.com/2014/10/07/trolling-consequences/ “The Offline Nightmares Behind Online Trolling” tells several people’s stories of online abuse.
The common threads in these stories appear to be:
groups that unquestioningly support people or behaviours, people who feel they can do whatever they like without consequences, and media that allow anonymous/pseudonymous expression.Oh, and systems of entrenched discrimination. Musn’t forget those! Often misogynist/partiarchal (even in progressive crowds), and always threatened by people who are not like them being heard. (And, generally, telling stories they don’t like.)
If you really wish to scrape the bottom of the barrel, http://www.vice.com/read/how-to-intimidate-people-293 “How To Intimidate People” from Vice makes disturbing reading. Many parallels between those who use intimidation in their work (“Pro Tips from Drug Dealers, Hostage Negotiators, Bouncers, and Drag Queens”), and common pastoral/religious behaviour.
A very good article on the difference between http://cl.ly/1d0V47451z1Z Narcissists and A**holes . The author, Lisa Thomson follows it up with http://cl.ly/3J3d0q2q1t2E Managing the Narcissist . Read them both.