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
Forgive me for not going through my comment prior to posting it. I hope the general thrust of what I was attempting to communicate still came through
While I have empathized with all involved in this thread (for each response seems to be a genuine response, though for reasons I am unable to discern because I literally know anyone here), I am thoroughly perplexed. Seriously. I truly do not know what to think anymore. While I do support free speech, I can’t deny my in ability to sort all this out from where I happen to be, dissociated from the major “players” having direct involvement with the situation at hand (which has gone way beyond what I thought this thread would be about, initially). I even got questioned for detracting from the thread, though my intent was to offer my personal struggle with what the thread eventually evolved into, while feeling for genuinely for Julie (based upon her willingness to divulge to a public blog her side of the story), and while questioning all along what really happened given others’ pov on all this. I am for the abused, and I am for the truth. And to be very frank, I really don’t know what to believe at this time. Am I to be blamed? Have I failed anyone approaching these matters from either side? Just so all here know, I am not a Christian, nor have I ever been, while I served in various capacities in different churches, only to discover that I was never one of “you.” But what we do share in common is that we are human beings, being quite screwed up, and yet, pretty fricken’ awesome, every damn one of us. Forgive me for taking the “middle ground,”… or don’t. I’m quite sure on this thread, I don’t measure up anyways, and that’s precisely why I left the Christian faith. In any case, I sincerely wish you all work this out, and for everyone’s sake. Much peace to all, Chris.
A further interesting quote by Jonathan Haidt (via Tony Jones and Brian McLaren’s blogs):
“Despite what you might have learned in Economics 101, people aren’t always selfish. In politics, they’re more often groupish. When people feel that a group they value — be it racial, religious, regional or ideological — is under attack, they rally to its defense, even at some cost to themselves. We evolved to be tribal, and politics is a competition among coalitions of tribes.
The key to understanding tribal behavior is not money, it’s sacredness. The great trick that humans developed at some point in the last few hundred thousand years is the ability to circle around a tree, rock, ancestor, flag, book or god, and then treat that thing as sacred. People who worship the same idol can trust one another, work as a team and prevail over less cohesive groups. So if you want to understand politics, and especially our divisive culture wars, you must follow the sacredness."
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/tonyjones/2012/04/13/custody-laws-our-government-in-inaction/ Quoted on Tony Jones’ Blog: Custody Laws: Our Government in (In)Action via Brian McLaren
The question for me becomes: Are my (our) goupish tendencies aiding justice, mercy, and humility?
Tim. He has regular visitation. Originally he asked that I have sole legal and sole physical I countered with shared legal because kids need a dad. Yes, I agree it would appear differently. Skilled people can make things appear not what they are.
This is not about divorce but a group of individuals protecting their image and brand by running over another. Often women and often with the rationalization they are crazy.
@Brother – yes, it was bothering me as I crunched the numbers that my method had flaws. I dropped Stats in college after a week because it was too nebulous. Chose Analytical Geometry instead :)