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
Just an observation. Julie has described a range of psychological abuses, legal abuses, abuses of power and position, breach of spiritual and tribal trust, psychic manipulation, numerous forms of sociopathic threats, physical harm, and conspiratorial behavior. And yet, those here with a defensive narrative (Brian, Brad, Sarah, Jon S, etc..) have avoided these critical issues. Instead, they collectively pat Julie on the head, saying “well deary, maybe you didn’t get the memo, but divorce IS messy.”
Sarah did it (“divorce is messy and dark”)
Brad did it (“this is about a marriage that ended badly”)
and others farther back in the comment thread.
No, Brad. While I honor and appreciate your enlightening reply, Julie’s core issues are NOT about divorce. You folks are using the same rhetorical trick over and over. Maybe you can manipulate and B.S. your local religious community, but it doesn’t work here.
Too many of us following this conversation are keenly sensitive to abuses of religious power, which happens to be a central focus of David’s work. Too many of us have seen these same patterns, over and over. When religiou$ power is challenged, it immediately attempts to censor, obfuscate, manipulate, gaslight, smear, pull rank, gang up, change the story, and whatever else it takes to hold onto its power while denigrating and destroying its foe. Many of us see these identical dynamics being used against Julie, and the evidence seems quite compelling, overwhelming in fact.
So, please, stop insulting us with a “divorce is messy” story arc. And recognize that what’s being discussed here is not just about Julie’s experience, but an all-too-common experience in Christendom that MUST be talked about, talked about, and talked about, openly and publicly, until these sociopathic abuses are eliminated from our communities.
@Sarah,
I remember you from 2007-8 around when your first book came out, back when I used to blog more, um, prolifically. It’s good that you added your background here to note your theological distance from Tony despite close working proximity at times.
I think it’s important to understand what @Kate was talking about, esp. her point #1. Also note carefully the part of @Brad Cecil’s comment and my response above on basically this same point. Way back in the thread, I said that some psychopaths don’t go around killing people, they just get jobs as CEOs and pastors. It is very characteristic of some types of psychopathy, including NPD, that the affected person would portray drastically differing personalities to different people in different contexts. This is not a form of MPD at all – it’s wilful. Once the individual has no further use for or finds they can no longer manipulate someone, their treatment of that person can change to polar opposites. Basically, once they can’t get what they want or no longer need anything from someone, there’s no longer any need for a charming front.
This is the chilling part about when the TV news reporter interviews the neighbor of the latest heinous criminal, and gets some stereotypical shocking comment about how one would never have known because they were so nice. It’s the same facade that covers so many abusers… you just can’t imagine them doing it because of what you’ve seen. The issue is that you’ve only seen a role that’s being played for you… only what they wanted you to see. When the individual is highly intelligent, it only gets more scary and disorienting.
Based on what we’ve learned here about what went on, including in the “discernment meeting”, it’s entirely plausible that an individual or a select few could have played the others to get the result they wanted. Do I think it possible that Tony could have done this? Yes, I do.
Sarah,
It’s great that Tony Jones can maintain friendships with some women. Unfortunately, Jesus’ focus is on how we treat “the least of these”; “the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the oppressed”; and “our enemies”.
We all fall short when subjected to this standard. But, nevertheless, that is what we should aspire to, and particularly those who are teachers, leaders, and/or pastors.
I have always found it interesting and frustrating in the conversation about spiritual abuse and/or other type of abuse within the Emergent circles of how women and men in the “inner circle” use “they have always been nice…..” “They have always been up standing….” As someone who has been on the receiving end of some toxic spill of a leader I found and still find it demeaning. How many times did Mars Hill people hear that? Yet, the truth came out.
I know I longed to hear “I know this person. I have not experienced what you say, but I cannot deny what happened is your truth.” Or some kind of thing on those lines. Instead I was guilted and I was shamed. People would rail me for speaking out. I was made out to be a liar because how could this great leader, well liked speaker ever do what I claim(ed).
I see the same thing here.
The thing is folks, whether you like it or not there are many emergent leaders and even followers guilty of abuses that have been voiced.
So out is this, how do we allow talk happen? How do we take the curtain away and admit, the emergent tent is guilty of things that have been well hidden?
The fact that Julie herself offered an apology suggests the very real possibility that this is not a witch-hunt, but a kind of mediation. I’ve sat in on mediations before and they are always confusing, messy, and emotional. However, they are also fruitful if done well. I believe the participants in this conversation are trying to do it well. So I’m confident if we persist in bringing our truths to light in a humble yet confident manner, even more good fruit will come of this. It makes me thankful to be a part of this experiment in community.