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
Fair enough, Brad Cecil. You seem the most forthright of all.
Brother Maynard,
Many jurisdictions already make a driver’s apology inadmissible in civil injury and/or damages cases. (Well, technically, they made driver admissions admissible but irrelevant when determining liability.) The insurers wanted this, so it was done :-)
I’m trying very hard to put myself in the place of one of those people in the discernment group AFTER the emergency oh-my-gosh-Julie’s-found-out-and-boy-is-she-pissed conversation. It sounds like at least one of them meant for TJ to man up and deal with his life, and also for Julie to have somebody there who wasn’t lying to her. Hence, 2 airplane tickets to MN. Hence the suggestion that Julie (but not TJ?) needed professional help — which would be enough to drive me around the bend, in her position.
But then it sounds like everyone looked away while TJ reinvented himself as a poor long-suffering dad chained to a crazy woman — instead of a garden variety philanderer with an inflated ego and a professional need to seem like a good guy. Worse, his good friend was supposed to be Julie’s pastor — someone she could turn to for support and counsel. So, a double betrayal of trust, magnified times about a thousand because all of it was taking place in the context of what was supposed to be a new and hopeful faith-practicing community.
Do I have it anywhere close?
Tim,
If you understand the specific condition then you understand the the legal system is used by these personality types as a “litigation hammer” to destroy the other person and render them penniless. I am the target. I am told it will never end. The term “litigation hammer” was used by a skilled professional involved. One may appear to want to be perceived in one way but in reality that is not what is going on. I have offered for years carte blanche take them to dinner to help me out financially. I have never once been taken up on that offer. Again, I really want to stress this is not about the messy never ending post divorce antics with an NPD but the culture of leaders in this publishing/speaking/minor celebrity circle that have smeared names and reputations in order to appear one way while behind the scenes another story is going on. Actually, this is a perfect example of appearing the suffering dad who never sees his kids when in fact its Tuesday over nights and every other weekend. Because I insisted he be in their lives on the hook for being a dad. Yes, the suffering spouse wronged by the legal system is played very well. Leaving your kids for another woman was a choice.
Thanks, Julie. The shared custody outcome certainly wasn’t clear from Tony Jones’ blog – although he does talk access percentages in a lot of his later posts.
And the length of the court cases (5 years, including a secondary case and an appeal) certainly seemed incompatible with the reluctance (or was that disillusionment?) expressed towards the court system on Tony’s blog.