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
@PatGreen
Thank you for your honesty and transparency. Worth any and all typos. :)
@JohnHubank
You sir, are a gem.
There’s a church in Austin TX where people who make a commitment to join also make a commitment to not leave without saying goodbye. It’s really a policy that’s meant to hold the whole church accountable — to make sure that those who find themselves wanting to exit get a chance to say publicly why. I’ve seen enough people go quietly from what used to be their church “homes” that the idea intrigues me. No more whispered guessing, or sneaky rumor-mongering, or back-biting after the fact. Just a moment to say, here’s where I’m at, here’s why, and thank you. I haven’t seen this in action, but I can imagine that just knowing it was part of the package would change the way a faith community interacts — and I mean both for pastors and members.
They do this during their Sunday morning gatherings, just as they accept new members in those gatherings. It seems healthy to me, especially when compared to Mars Hill’s shunning practices or what happened to Julie and others here.
And this final quote describes what we’ve seen of the Emergent dynamic right here on this thread:
“I think internalizing the fact that no opinion/belief/enthusiasm inoculates either you or anyone else from the baser aspects of the human condition, or the larger social milieu in which we all exist, is probably a very smart thing to do. It helps manage the disappointment when the cool new group you find yourself with is eventually revealed to be full of flawed and fallible human beings, and it helps to free you from the initial desire to rationalize shitty behavior within a group merely for the sake of identity politics.”
A quote from a blogger I follow that’s quite relevant to the discussion of the conditions that enable abuse (in reference to the atheist and science fiction convention scenes):
“Having one thing in common, whether it be a belief or enthusiasm or hobby or political mission, does not make you immune, individually or as a class, to all the other ridiculous social baggage humans carry with them all the time. The belief that it does or should, among other things, creates within any assemblage the space for assholes to thrive and prey on other people.”
— John Scalzi, http://whatever.scalzi.com/2014/09/27/people-are-the-problem-and-they-pretty-much-always-will-be/ People Are the Problem and They Pretty Much Always Will Be
In short, a belief that we’re better people because we’re (Christian, American, Educated, Atheist, …) leads us to avoid preventative measures against abuse, and justify abusive behaviours when they do occur.
And a further quote:
“You don’t get credit with me simply for believing something I believe. You get credit for how you deal with other human beings.”
I think Jesus said something pretty similar.
Actually, I should quote Paul directly here: “Anyone who wants to be an elder should be the husband of just one wife…”
Therefore, if one has a “legal” wife, and a “spiritual” wife, that would be an instant disqualification. Whatever language is used to justify it.