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
So here’s my question: how much marriage/psychology counseling education do pastors actually have vs. someone in the secular/independent professionals who are specifically TRAINED AND LICENSED for such counseling? It’s my understanding that most seminaries don’t require instruction for an MDiv, and when they do, they are primarily introductory. Might this not be a large part of the problems we see?
“I was met with a response from someone who seemed like a completely different person. He repeatedly said that it was impossible to hold church leaders responsible for their treatment of others. He denied, attacked my personality, blamed my past experiences for my perceptions, blamed behavior within his church on things like deaths and illnesses, and threw in some non-apologies like ’I’m sorry you feel that way’.”
_____________________________
We just need to realize there are some vicious people out there, many of them are drawn to churches and leadership, I sincerely believe, because they know they can hurt God’s people more efficiently that way. I no longer consider atheists my enemies, they’re generally just people trying to get through life like me, many of whom have experienced abuse from Christians so-called and thus (in my opinion) have tragically thrown out the underlying message. I wish I could convince them that Jesus is being wholly misrepresented by people like you former pastor. My enemies are the the ones who destroy in the name of God and their enablers. I believe they’re the wolves that Christ warned us about. I can pray for them, I can forgive them, but I want nothing to do with them.
Oh I agree Ke. Totally. I said “I often think…” when I should have said, “I think that often…” I’ll correct that. Yes… some people who are more sensitive catch on quicker, while some who are so invested in their own identities or their organization’s, etc., that they take longer.
@ David – I agree with you that the defensive behavior described by Claire is common to many organizations and not intentionally malicious, at least initially. And I agree that occurs because the leader identifies so strongly with the organization’s success. 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.
To use your car manufacturer example, how long can the company deny there is a problem (there’s no defect), claim the result is the operator’s fault (you drove on those tires too fast), attack the operator’s character (if you weren’t so reckless/agressive/timid etc. the result wouldn’t have happened), issue non-apologies (Mistakes were made. We’re sorry you think you were harmed.), and silence people (like firing people who knew about the problem, for example), before we can assign maliciousness to that company? I think at some point the defensiveness becomes just as bad or even worse than the initial injury, and we have to admit that there is at the very least a callous disregard and contempt for the injured by the leaders of the organization.
So much of what we recognize now as serious patterns of church abuse originate not from the actual abuse but from the people deny and cover it up. If you look at the high-profile history of the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, for example, I would guess that some smaller portion involves the priests who actually engaged in the abuse, while some larger portion is the cover-up. I don’t think in most cases that the priests and bishops involved in the cover-up actively desired for children to be abused, they just wanted to maintain the church’s outward reputation and did not care that the collateral result was that the victims did not receive justice and that in many cases, more abuse occurred. If it was isolated, I think we could say it wasn’t intended as malicious, but where there’s a repeated pattern, or just continued denial over an extended period, I think we are quite justified in describing the behavior as malicious and intentional.
Danielle, It’s not “gossip” if it’s your OWN experience and story. That’s a common shutting-down technique, to accuse one of telling their own story of gossip, but it simply isn’t valid.