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
Mike – I just don’t get it.
The fact that Julie and others have been hurt by the EC machine is evident by both what they have said and by the apologies offered by you and others.
Yet you seem to keep wanting to make other points.
If the ‘machine’ of an organisation or group has been dangerous then the apologies and acknowledgements need to hang there for a while whilst we all reflect without the need to further defend.
The risk of the apology is that the movement may die (deserve to die) -alternatively it may learn, grow, and live.
There have been some excellent points made by women and men on here that add to our chance to learn.
If I may say that the extra baggage your words add to your apology do not help your apology to land.
I hope that helps.
@ Mike
It proves “less than nothing”? Huh? What does that mean? It means nothing.
Becky, thank you for your words. You’re right, apologies cannot be demanded but good and decent people have little to no difficulty ever apologizing. Things have come up in my memory bank since sharing my story. After Mark Scandrette failed to get me to “pack a bag, I am taking you to the hospital” Doug called and pressured me, “If you want to save your marriage this is the only way!” Through tears, I explained to him I just called the hospital and the intake nurse who assessed me said she did not in her professional opinion deem hospitalization appropriate for me, and further she quipped, “Honey, what you need, is a good lawyer.” Truer words were never spoken. Then Doug said, “I’ll pick you up right now and take you. I will find a hospital to admit you.” THIS is the stellar Pastoral care Brian McLaren defends?! The kicker here? The “only way to save your marriage” was a lie, as he and she had already planned their mutual leavinf of their spouses (both married at the time) plan. Doug, with the full knowledge wanted me hospitalized to protect the brand. He knows it. And, I know it. Doug Pagitt you are a LIAR. A BEST OF COMMENTS should be written is these nearing 600 posts (guess people has things to say!!) I love the John Hubanks, “That really says something when you lose a basic decency contest to Mark Driscoll” referring to abandoning your wife and 3 kids draining all bank accounts and assets and cutting off all credit cards. Then saying to the kids and I quote, “If you want milk come and live with me….I always have plenty of milk.” That sickening quote is in the official court documents. Doug was made aware of how dire the situation was….he did NOTHING. Would not respond to calls or emails….protected the brand at all costs. Taking away my children for 10 terrifying hours while Mark was supposed to succesfully get me hospitalized and refusing to tell me where they are or who they are with….is THAT the stellar Pastoral care you speak of Brian McLaren?! If it walks like a cult and talks like a cult….it’s a cult.
Now at almost 600 comments, the one thing I hope for outside of the apologies that Julie (and others) so richly deserve is an end to the evangelical/pomo/dispensational/Calvinist/church-growth/emergent/author/leadership/Christian conference scene (pick one or more categories as YMMV). They are all being slowly exposed as sheep-fleecing operations. Think of all the people who could actually be ministered to in a local community if all these “talented” Christians stayed home and nurtured the Gospel in their local communities.
Among the many warts the Church has, this one is really simple to fix. It only requires a willingness to not spend money on the celebrity culture. These traveling conference speakers are beginning to remind me of celebutantes in maintaining brand through the entourage.
@Becky – re: “sorry but you told me this year that there never was an affair between Courtney and Tony, a fact that without a doubt discredits Julie’s story.”
I told you no such thing. I just double-checked my email, and the last time we had any correspondence was May 2013, and we were certainly not talking about TandC. We’ve not seen each other or had a phone conversation in many years. Maybe you’re thinking of someone else?
As far as “one hired to promote Brian’s products, handle PR for Wild Goose and the like you definitely have skin in the game,” see my comment last night on Spiritual McCarthyism. What does this prove? Less than nothing. I was hired by Brian’s publisher to promote Brian; I was hired by your publisher to promote you! And in my years with the Goose, we had hundreds of different artists, creators, musicians and speakers. Your much-loathed “gang of US emergent boys” made up a negligible sliver of our lineup, which I’m proud to say is one of the most diverse in its class.