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.
1080 comments
@ Mike
There’s a background to everything. Many people who follow abusive church movements are well aware that such abusive organizations will release stories that get picked up by Christian media that are purportedly impartial but are really just paid ads for the ministry. This happened just months ago in the Driscoll situation. That is the backdrop against which you are operating when you tell us, without explanation, about a service running a story.
Mob. Spiritual McCarthyism.
For one offering sincere apologies for calling someone names, you are quick to throw to throw more around.
Interesting analysis, Danica—and yep, it’s another brick in a very solid wall of noted misogyny among theological circles.
From my vantage on this thread, it’s very hard not to feel “unmarginalized”, if you will, unless you at some point drank the Emergent kool-aid. The overall exchanges have been interesting to read to me, because with the clear exception of Julie—who was outright wronged and is due the apologies she seeks—it reads like a lot of typical in-house backbiting, now that things have come to light. Which is just like every other theological trend out there where people are trying to justify their turf of where they were “right”, where they were “misled”, and where they have been “wronged”. Other takes on the theology have largely gone unaddressed, or have been one-offs—because frankly, no one is interested in having those discussions, misogyny or no.
Danica
This is such an important point. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.
So I have been feeling slightly unheard on this thread (this isn’t about poor Danica, and I’m not posting it to get sympathy, but to share my findings), so I decided to use David’s newly implemented ‘like / dislike’ buttons to crunch a few numbers, and compare the responses to the men on the thread vs the women. I felt like I was getting a disproportionately low number of ‘likes’, and a disproportionately high number of ‘dislikes’, as were other women, in the thread.
I did not tally the gender neutral responses. I only started counting after Julie came in the first time (because I wanted to focus on the debate surrounding the Tony / Julie situation). I stopped counting after Brother’s comment on Sept 25 at 9:30am, since that was where the thread ended when I started my number crunching (the numbers continue to rise, but I feel like I have a fairly representative sample to go off of).
Of the total comments, as defined by the above parameters, 243 were made by women. 188 were made by men. Proportionately, women made up 56% of the comments, and men 44%. So women talked more often than the men did.
The women got a total of 1864 likes. The men got a total of 4142 likes. Proportionately, women got 31% of the likes, and 69%. So, men got ‘liked’ more often than men did. A LOT more often, especially considering that there were more women who commented.
The women got a total of 25 dislikes. The men got a total of 39 dislikes. Proportionately, women got 39% of the dislikes, and men got 56% of the dislikes. So men were still more likely to get noticed, but women were more likely to get negative attention than they were to get positive attention.
I have wondered often if it’s all in my head, this perception that I must speak ‘nice’, or I wont’ be accepted. And that my voice isn’t as important as a man’s anyhow when I do speak. But the numbers seem to back up my feelings.
Misogyny is alive and well, folks, and I think much of it is internalized even by those of us who want to fight against it. I know if I’m honest with myself, I liked men’s comments more than women’s. The reason I bring this up here, since it may seem off topic to some, is because Julie’s fight against the EV machine feels like a fight of one woman against misogyny. It feels like the struggle of a woman to have her voice heard amid the loud, dominant male ones. This is a struggle I identify with deeply, as I have felt for a long time that on many blogs (especially the ‘theological’, intellectual type ones), I do not have as equal a place at the table as the Emergent leaders would tell me. And this is the thread where I decided I was tired of being quiet and cowed by the big, dominant personalities, especially Tony Jones, who shot me and dozens of my sisters down when he asked the question, ‘where are the women?’, but then refused to hear when we told him that we were simply weary of not being heard.
Bill,
I have serious doubts as to whether this is a battle that’s worth fighting for me. I look at this event, and others that have gained attention just in the past few years, and what I see is behaviors that are even less morally upright than that of the folks who hung out in the bars I used to frequent. And there was a whole lot less back-stabbing and in-fighting going on in the bars compared to churches.
I’m not talking about renouncing my faith, though, just the connectivity and community aspects of church. Barely an hour goes by on my Twitter or FB feeds where someone is proclaiming that church community is of the utmost importance. Well, it seems to me that this “community” is one that makes a concealed-carry permit a near necessity. It doesn’t give off the vibe of a safe neighborhood that I’d care to live in anymore.