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
This from Pastor Shroyer (I use her title because she came here to scold us into behaving better):
“I will not apologize for responding as any decent human on the planet would have done.”
Since she’s left, I’m not speaking to her but instead to those in ministry who might be lurking here. It appears that Pastor Shroyer believes herself to be blameless. She believes herself, on the night of the crisis, to have merely behaved as a decent human doing what decent humans do. They try to help. That’s the end of the story for her. She tried to help, it didn’t work out, and now she’s being publicly named as someone who callously helped a philandering friend when he wanted nothing but to make his angry wife shut up.
I can see how that would be annoying. I can even see how it would seem unfair, especially if it’s true that she didn’t know at the time that he was a philanderer, much less one who had already hired a lawyer but was pretending that he wanted to stay married. I take her at her word on that. She’s been falsely accused.
What Pastor Shroyer doesn’t do is recognize that in a very small way, this false accusation against her is a bit like the “batshit crazy” one that her friend’s ex-wife has been tagged with secretly for a number of years. (Ironic.) She also doesn’t address the question we’re all trying to approach in our different ways, which I’d characterize this way:
What recourse does a church-goer have when they’ve been shunned and shamed and abandoned by people they ought to have been able to trust?
This thread is evidence that it’s not an uncommon thing.
What’s been uncommon, until recent times anyway, is for pastors to be called out publicly by parishioners who have found their trust abused and their places in their communities taken away. My introduction to the Mars Hill story was a blog post that exposed how a young man was shamed, publicly humiliated, and shunned for the sin of confessing that he’d been sexual with his fiance. And then it turned out that there were LOTS of people who had been abused in various ways at Mars Hill, and then that there were also lots MORE people who had experienced similar things at their own churches.
It seems like something ministers, including Pastor Shoyer, might want to think about. It’s not going to work to simply suggest that everybody go do some good in the world and stop gossiping. We know good when we see it.
Brad Cecil,
Smart people who care and want to help are often used very badly by Narcissists and/or Sociopaths in “ministry” positions…. as I well know. The key to this is what I learned from it even down to who got hurt because I went along. Because I owed them even if I was duped, too, because I did not seek out their story.
My new position is now always" truth first" instead of first being a compassionate helper that gets duped into hurting others when I think I am doing the right thing. (And truth first is messy and hard work) Now, instead of believing the “titled” positional person (and their defenders) I always check all sides. Wise as serpents, gentle as doves because there are lots of wolves out there.Danica,
I know a woman, an educated theologian, who did an experiment back in early blogger days by presenting herself as Larry on many pastor blogs. Larry was taken quite seriously and engaged. But when she was Laurie, who had the some exact positions and level of discourse, she was ignored. She did it to prove to herself she was not nuts. There really was an underlying misogyny that even the men did not recognize they possessed." But I question whether after some period of time, we can assign some level of ill-will or malicious intent when church leaders continue to deny and attack in the face of persistent claims of mistreatment and/or abuse. "
Brad the futurist guy taught me something about this. He put words to something I had witnessed but could not explain. What you are describing above is a “closed system”. The “behavior” you described becomes “institutionalized” whether they realize it or not. And they operate in a closed structure even if they appear to be the opposite on stages. The level of their own deception is enormous.
I was in seeker megas as a consultant and saw this first hand. People would come on staff and over the course of a few years several things could happen to them. 1) they seek power and access to the leadership so they are completely on board or 2) They are uncomfortable with the system but go along. In effect they have sold their souls for a mess of pottage because they are never really happy but stay anyway. or 3) they figure it out and leave or are fired… sometimes even causing trouble by questioning things first. We called them the “no cake” people who simply disappeared and no one dared ask about them.The first group which includes the leadership, this becomes their “normal”. Nothing more important than image, brand, buildings, books, conferences, etc. It is all for the glory of God, you know. I have seen perfectly humble men become charlatans in a few years and not even realize it because they made their own pitcher of kool aid in the closed system. It is heady stuff to be close to so much power and be able to slap a fish on it and call it spiritual. And keep in mind, to grow a movement or a very large church takes some serious ego, charisma and maneuvering, etc. It takes a while to earn the trust of the people so they can be set apart from them.
So when you are not a good little admirer from the pews but instead ask uncomfortable questions, you will get what you got depending on your potential pocketbook. I used to encourage people to ask to see a budget because I knew they would never be given one. Ever. I was amazed at how long they would play the “no seeing the budget game” because of this or that excuse and how many departments or people they were sent to with the outcome: Don’t you trust our elders?
I wish I could say most Christian movements or mega churches are not like this but my experience over many years says different. I am ashamed of my time in them but at least I went out fighting pegged as a troublemaker and “emotionally unstable”. Yep, they will do all they can to marginalize folks. So my advice is run. Don’t even bother with trying reason or understanding. Wasting your time. I have a copy of their playbook. :o)
Thank you for your kind response, Peggy. And you are right, the complex is real and it is quite possible for clergy to feast together on it. Blessings to you.