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
@Lainie … I was just saying that there is so much arrogant, even if unintentional, Messiah complex running rampant in the Church and her pastors and leaders — groups of “equally unqualified clergy.” Thank you for “un-lurking” to share your wisdom here.
Lurker coming out of the woodwork here to answer Jeff Straka’s question: Every M.Div. program is different, so it is hard to say what people actually learn in these programs about marriage counseling. My own M.Div. program required minimal coursework in pastoral care, though the importance of referring people to competent practitioners was certainly stressed. We had the option of taking additional counseling courses, but they certainly didn’t equip us to be counselors, much less marital counselors. Some people could, however, go on to programs that did offer specific, graduate-level training in counseling that could eventually lead to licensure.
I did take a course that focused on identifying major mental health disorders, including personality disorders. This course served me well: For one thing, it made me well-aware of my inability to diagnose or treat such disorders. It also taught me that clergy have to be on our guard against both parishioners and other clergy who have such disorders, particularly since we are often on ego-trips about “helping” people and get happy-clappy about spearheading redemption stories.
From what I know, marriage counseling is its own beastie and many licensed mental health practitioners (much less pastors) are NOT trained in counseling couples. This is problematic, particularly if there is abuse involved. Naturally, many pastors and counselors are likewise not good at spotting signs of abuse and their counseling, when it happens, often worsens the plight of victims.
In short: I think that clergy, no matter how well-intended, are often out of their depth when trying to address marital breakdown, particularly when mental health issues (and especially personality disorders) are a factor. This is true whether the clergyperson is working on her own or with a group of equally unqualified clergy. From reading this thread, it appears to me that, at the very least, some well-intended individuals attempted an overreach that seriously backfired on at least one person that they thought they were helping.
Julie, I am truly, truly sorry that this happened to you. You deserved, and continue to deserve, better.
Adie, to be fair where fairness if warranted yes! I am in agreement. If they in good faith were played then would they please direct their rage at the person(s) who played them? They would not speak to me which is a little odd don’t you think? I asked questions….what is going on? I was hung up on and given no response…only silence. One is left to fill in the blanks when the other parties refuse to respond. This is the first responses I have received on this issue. Danielle is being disingenuous in part, and she knows that but has put on a good show. Agreed, discerning with only the party with the crafty and clever diagnosis was indeed their downfall. Plus, I never called them and asked them to gather and discern without me!? That is untrue. I was ambushed. I was sleeping with my napping 3 year old when Mark Scandrette walked into my bedroom. I was wearing only a rob. He sat on the end of the bed and said, “Your kids will be fine and you need to pack a bag for the hospital.” Does this seem like good Pastoral care? I was scared to death! If they were played and I am not entirely convinced because of some discrepancies….then yes I apologize but the smear campaign that took place to justify the divorce, cover an affair and save book deals? I think that is very much real as testimony here has verified….not holding my breath for those people to come forward. If they were capable of that….doubtful they are capable of a simple I am sorry.
“…so you can come down from your pedestal now and admit your role.”
_________________________
Don’t hold your breath. She writes like one who doesn’t give one whit about the truth. Kick the dust off your feet, let her go, it’s between her and God.
“I am not interested in getting mired in what would be an exhausting effort to correct all the misinformation on this thread despite my frustration at so many of my friends being unfairly judged and accused.
________________
Honestly, that’s spoken like a true liar.