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
@Ken Archer
“The fray is where the Kingdom is.”
Love it.
Also: that’s why I don’t think the traveling conference speaker circuit in whatever brand as being all that useful for Kingdom work. Helicoptering in, delivering a speech, and helicoptering out isn’t a way to build the Church. Day in, day out, in a local community this where life is delivered to those who need it.
I had completely forgotten about the anti-emergent watchbloggers. (The only watchblogger I have read the last years is the Wartburg Watch, which I appreciate a lot) If one of them picks up on this story there might indeed appear a lot of quite unreadable ‘heretic emergent guru sex scandal cover-up’ posts on certain sites.
I suppose that’s what you meant with ‘his significant wire story’, Mike?
One of the most powerful scenes in NKOC was when Neo talked about his ex-wife, and used his experience of forgiving her repeated affairs as a way to begin to understand the forgiveness we have in Jesus.
In fact, that’s what made NKOC so potent, it used people with messy lives to articulate some profound truths. Compare that to reading those same truths in a theology textbook.
It seems to me that we have to approach our daily lives the same way – our opportunities to live in the Kingdom are always right in front of us. If we view interpersonal strife as a distraction to doing the work of God, then we aren’t living in the Kingdom.
So, extricating oneself from another couple’s failing marriage early on when they’ve asked us to help them doesn’t seem like the right decision for someone who I know lives a Kingdom life.
The entire response to Julie by folks in close relationship with Tony seems like a highminded attempt to stay above some fray. But the fray is where the Kingdom is.
It’s no fun to read Julie’s comments and even less fun to add new comments to this thread – I want to look away too. Believe me. But I would ask Tony’s friends and colleagues to consider that everyone else is seeing a woman being treated like women are typically treated – as crazy and unstable – and asking us for some justice here in how she was treated. It’s not so easy to just look away and say – oh that’s a private matter.
Deleted Mike’s emails out of profound frustration so letting it go. However, I never saw anything from any publisher indicating Mike was hired to work on any of my books – his involvement beyond two then friends editing each other’s works is very peripheral at best. His involvement though in promoting Brian is substantial. But enough about Mike ‘n’ me – let’s look at Julie and the broader picture – Driscoll and the US emergents are far closer in pathology than anyone would care to admit.
Brad @ 1:23pm,
Perhaps it’s the Discernment News Service. They only talk amongst themselves.