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
Eric,
Hang in there, sir. This battle is worth fighting.
Someone asked if this was being picked up by any other blogs, and I’ve heard that, yes, a story was being written by a service that has a number of wire subscriptions. A mainstream news source. I don’t understand where “buying” or “threat” was read into that – this is starting to feel like a bit of a mob, folks…
@Alan Molineaux – I absolutely believe that everyone who feels it in their heart to apologize, should. Me, Steve, Andrew Jones and others here, have. I’m really glad we have. And if others feel they can’t apologize, because their understanding of the facts is at odds with Julie’s, well – that’s their prerogative, too. Like most of you, I want to see the truth come out. Unlike some of you, I’m not sure if continuing to repeat the same things over and over on a blog thread is going to serve this truth coming out.
BTW, I totally agree that “The risk of the apology is that the movement may die (deserve to die) -alternatively it may learn, grow, and live.”
I think that all apologies that need to be made, should.
And I think that emergence – and the myriad of other names this community has – IS learning, growing, living. In many networks and communities that have never even heard of the “Big Names” that everyone is talking about here. I know that most people in http://www.northraleighcommunitychurch.org my worshiping community have never heard of these folks – they’re too busy housing homeless folks, working with the Interfaith Food Shuttle, and practicing the Prayer of Examen in our small groups.
I don’t want to see anything swept under any rugs – I feel like anyone accusing me of this must be mis-reading me – either willfully, or because you’ve become so swept up into one way of reading this online discourse, that you feel any divergent view must be swiftly – and shrilly – dispatched.
I think where additional truth-telling and fact-finding needs to happen, it should. I’m not sure that a milieu exists where this can happen to everyone’s satisfaction – a mediator? A truth-and-reconciliation commission? But I pray it does.
May grace and truth find us all.
Hi David.
I just wanted to thank you for your great heart and insight that has led: I am sure you would say unexpectedly, to this fascinating and informative conversation.
I think your art is definitely a creative source where truly a picture can say ‘more than a thousand words’. To add – your words also carry great wisdom
I have followed this link and unfolding story from here in UK whilst being unwell ( I am not sure with work I could have found time to read it all)
I am not a commenter on blogs usually because someone will say exactly what I feel in a far more concise way.
This has been the case throughout this unfolding story.
Today having continued to read and digest the many comments I just felt that I needed to add my small support (for what it is worth) to Julie. I have been incredibly saddened by your treatment at the hands of a group who clearly should have known better. Standing up against those who are more powerful and out to discredit you makes for harrowing reading.
I found the latest blog written by Tony Jones really difficult reading and was shocked to find many comments on the blog were positive: praising his embracing of Mark Driscoll.
For me reading Tony saying:
‘My point is this: It could have happened to any of us’.
I wanted to shout loudly – ‘NO it couldn’t’.
This is a blog with ‘white male privilege’ all over it. Written by a man who has not considered how it feels for those whom Mark Driscoll and his ministry have treated appallingly.
The worst of this treatment directed towards women, and as a female I refuse to let Mark Driscoll off the hook.
So for Tony who says he hardly knows Mark and has never been hurt at his hands or though his ministry: to then state he has ‘reached out’ to him leads those devastated by this man and his ministry looking less capable of following Christ’s teaching to forgive.
This I feel is incredibly insensitive and naive to the pain that those exposed to his teaching have suffered and are possibly still suffering.
Tony also states:
‘Those were heady days. Cover articles on Christianity Today and Christian Century within a year of each other — that’s rare. Television coverage on ABC and PBS. Articles in the New York Times. Speaking gigs, book contracts, conferences. That shit can go to your head.
Let’s be honest. It did.’
I would like to suggest it still has.
Well, I just found out that the Emperors and Empresses of the hip church movement get really peeved when you point out that they’re not wearing any clothes. It’s amking me re-evaluate whether or not I want to have anything to do with Christians at all anymore.
@Mike Scolare aka He of the Venerable Bede Icon …
Thank you for that helpful summary — definitely something worth reflecting on some more for me. Part of the whole postmodern thing, both philosophically and culturally, was that the usual approaches and structures of modernity were failing and falling … they (those who ran the cogs in it) just didn’t know it yet. Or suspected there was an implosion forthcoming, but were trying to fix it by The Usual Modernist Means.
Anyway, my take from 7+ years of some in-depth studies into dynamics of toxic systems is that malignant ministry can happen within any classic or contemporary theological paradigm, any denomination, as you’ve suggested. But it involves people who either set up sick processes, or who allow them to continue, to where they become part of the warp and woof of that organization’s contexture.
My church history friends always talked about how we needed to study our past in order to avoid the same traps in the future. As a futurist, I do so hope we (North American Church) can move away from intervention-level moments like this to where it could and should have been all along, at the levels of prevention so that fewer malignant ministers and problem movements get their start, and interception of those which show early-warning patterns of toxicity before things get too ingrained. But then, isn’t that the core hope of any reflection we do, so we can make course corrections in our trajectory of spiritual transformation to become more like Christ?