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
@John Hubanks,
I appreciate your concerns, and even agree with what you’re saying could happen with others. But with respect to me, I didn’t try to shut the telling of the story down. My point was that the some people on this thread actually didn’t help Julie’s message get through even as they saw behaviors trying to shut it down. The info Julie shared here was disconcerting, upsetting and incredibly disappointing with respect to people who should know better. It needed to be shared.
but if others want people to hear and honor her story, some (again, not you) of the stuff said here just became turbulence.
So, no. I wasn’t even “unwittingly” shutting things down. In fact, many of Julie’s advocates were getting in the way of the very things they wanted.
And, frankly, if my words are saying to an abuse victim she shouldn’t share, well, that’s only for Julie to say, since it’s her story, and that’s the story you and I both agree should be out there.
That’s my 2 cents.
Peace.
@Tim and @John Hubanks,
Thanks for your responses. To be clear, neither of you were an example of the “problem”.
@Julie,
I am praying for you. I was just talking with my wife about this situation and she and I are dumbstruck and grieved.
And, to complement Julie’s post of Rachel Held Evans’ 6 points, here are Wenatchee The Hatchet’s 6 counter-points (also posted by Becky Garrison):
1. We must educate ourselves on how publishing and media industries work because the last year’s 2014 worth of Driscoll scandals shine a light on how those industries may have made him a star to begin with.
2. An unstinting internal critique of the actions and ethics of people on “our” team is vital and must be sustained and maintained even if it is awkward and painful.
3. Identity politics as usual is not only not a way forward, it was one of the key reasons none of the last year’s controversies did not come to light earlier. This needs to change.
4. The last year’s worth of controversy are simultaneously a commendation and condemnation of the state of “Christian” journalism and associated punditry, but the alternative is not necessarily blogging or “just” blogging, but a reappraisal of our ethics and interests in the public sphere
5. Christians should not operate under the illusion that “our” heroes are not also capable of being monsters.
6. We should attempt to understand the scandals associated with Mark Driscoll as indicative of the crimes and passions we excuse or berate in our various heroes as a mirror to critique our own loyalties and ethics.
Pat was one of the OPs that first acknowledged what was happening with me and how it was wrong. It meant a lot to me. Pat became one of my greatest defenders. Seeing him post here about some of that means a lot. It takes me back to those who stood when it meant losing a lot.
The hardest part about being in this thread is reliving it all. Remembering things I wanted to forget. Not long ago i deleted all my evidence. Plus, those who know what was said about me have said they would not ever talk about it outside of a small group of friends. I know this because when one of my abusers came out with a book there was interest in what they had done to me. A reporter was looking into it and other wrongs they had done. People quickly closed their doors. Soon after I deleted everything. No one was ever going to back me up. No one was ever going to believe me.
I had friends on the inner circle. Hell, I was a part of emergent way before that label ever showed up. I had friends on the inner circle of OP (outlaw preachers). When those friends stood for me they lost a lot too. From what they have told me, they were in a room with my abusers for hours. The best they could come up with was that I was bipolar, insane, a bully, and deserved any shame I got.
They did well.
Until this thread I had not realized what I had let happen. The day I deleted it all was the day my abusers win. I gave up. Julie did not. That says a lot.
@bill and @david: thank you. Your words mean a lot.
@julie: my thanks to you open up a world of emotions for me. Thank you.
To all who contributed to this thread, including those of you who pissed me off, thank you. This conversation is important and the ones whom ignored it, denied it viability and dismissed it have shown disregard for the concept of “the conversation”. The marginalized spend their lives living under the thumb of the rules of the privileged. People want to be heard and when they are hurt and ignored, they scream and yell. It would behoove you to listen.
Please please please do not let this end when this thread is no longer shiny and hip.