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
I have experienced abuse in several forms in my life; physical, emotional, sexual, church, etc. One thing that is common in EVERY SINGLE FORM: the abuser doesn’t see anything wrong with what they have done. I have heard “I did the best I could raising 3 children who weren’t even my own” (from a woman who beat children so severely she left scars and caused brain damage), “thought you wanted to be alone” (from a pastor at our abusive church who saw me, bawling hysterically, alone in a dark, practically empty parking lot. http://matthew23chick.blogspot.com/2011_11_01_archive.html).
I believe many abusers are, to a certain extent, narcissistic. It is really about them. If you hadn’t done X, I wouldn’t have done Z. When you throw in a narcissist speaking for God, by speaking out, you are turning your back on God and not being very Christian-like. Apologies are not needed if they are following God’s plan for them, for things that they really didn’t do wrong, or they did the best they could, even if people were hurt in the process.
Any apology you are luck enough to get turns into “I’m sorry, but…” Even if those aren’t the exact words, that is the meaning.
They’re already aware of it on at least one other major blog that is closely affiliated with TWW and they are watching this closely.
@brad/futuristguy
I love church history. My icon over there is the Venerable Bede sitting at his desk recording the history of the Church in all of its weirdness and hope during the late Roman Empire.
My reading has taught me that revival comes birthed in prayer when structures and institutions crumble, are attacked, or fail to defend the weak. It is often spontaneous, coupled with a profound sense of sin and repentance brought about by circumstances forcing people away from their hubris and towards humility.
We live in an age where, at least for Western Christians, the hubris is stacked like the Tower of Babylon. The exposure of the RC leadership, MHC, SGM, and now EV, and who knows where else, is proof that pride goes before a fall. But a fall is necessary to receive salvation. Rank may have its privileges as the military says, but the first shall be last according to Jesus.
@ Mike Scolare
Amen and Amen!
Gosh I hope they do that Significant Wire Story with all the accusations of Spiritual McCarthyism and the like. All it will do is call attention to this blog and Tony and Doug and Mike and Brian and the whole crew. The people already beholden to them with feel like circling the wagons more and will feel outraged—but of course, that will be no different than it has always—whereas a multitude of others will only have their attention drawn further to the actions of the above-named.
I sense a backfire of Biblical proportions looming.