2012 StandPoint Conference Session 1: A Bridge Too Far

Tags 

Speaker: Phil Johnson
Companion paper here.

Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
Since 6/1/09 19:00:00
7438 posts
Thanks

Interesting stuff. I'm only 15:30 in and have to do some other things, but looking forward to taking in the rest.
Thanks to the StandPoint folks for sharing with us.

Offline
Since 3/1/10 17:41:04
801 posts
Hold on. There's a video on

Hold on. There's a video on SharperIron? Are the technology Oompa loompas working extra hard tonight?

Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
Since 6/1/09 19:00:00
7438 posts
Reading...

Reading is better for your brain. (I'm sure that's in the Bible). But yes, we can embed video, in fact, I think Jim can do it with one had tied behind his back (and Mounty can do it with both hands tied behind his back).

Offline
Since 6/2/09 20:49:25
383 posts
Phil & SharperIron & Bridging

I remember years back, writing a post for SharperIron, entitled something like this: "A Separatist at Grace Community Church".

Now, as I listen to Phil tonight (listened to the whole thing), two things are on my mind:

(1) I hope to hear Phil at the Reformation Montana conference in about 2 weeks
http://www.reformationmontana.org/about-us/blog/2012-refmt-conference-sc...

(2) I will be attending the community bridging event in Idaho Falls on June 13 at the Colonial Theater, spotlighting the conversation between Bob Millet and Greg Johnson. Bob Millet is quoted in today's frontpage article of our local newspaper, "LDS church braces for a mean season." " 'People who have opposed Mormonism forever will use this as an opportunity,' said Robert Millet, a religion scholar at Brigham Young University who co-founded a pioneering evangelical-Mormon dialogue. 'I don't know if we're ready for this kind of deluge.' "

Offline
Since 6/2/09 20:49:25
383 posts
Romney

Millet's quote of "use this as an opportunity" is in reference to Romney's presidential campaign.

Offline
Since 5/6/09 20:45:47
3666 posts
Humor

Shaynus wrote:
Hold on. There's a video on SharperIron? Are the technology Oompa loompas working extra hard tonight?

We gave them extra rations over the weekend... Biggrin

Seriously - thanks for posting this, Mike. I'm looking forward to watching!

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Pastork's picture
Offline
Since 3/18/10 13:40:42
122 posts
Well said once again, Phil!

Once again I couldn't agree more with Phil Johnson. I think he has hit the nail squarely on the head, as he usually does.

Offline
Since 5/8/12 16:37:45
44 posts
Be Discerning About Johnson

Most (perhaps even all) of what he says is true. It’s what he leaves out that is the problem. He makes accusations that are not accurate. He stated that the Elephant Room was “scripted”. I have no interest in the Elephant Room but I’d like to see his proof for that. He stated that a certain evangelical leader has spent too much time influenced by TV, etc. Proof? If it’s not true, it’s not loving. Even if it is true, it needs to be done “in love”.

We also need to be discerning about Mr. Johnson's ministry. He makes accusations that require substantiation. Telling the truth is essential. For example, he stated that the Elephant Room was “scripted”. I have no interest in the Elephant Room but I’d like to see his proof for that. He stated that a certain evangelical leader has spent too much time influenced by TV, etc. Proof? If it’s not true, it’s not loving. Even if it is true, it needs to be done “in love”. He accused an evangelical pastor of “pornographic divination”, essentially of summoning demons (witchcraft for the purpose of lust).

First, “pornography” is media whose intent it is to incite lust. Therefore, for something to be “pornographic”, it has to be geared for that purpose. It is not simply anything that is about sex, or else certain passages of the Bible would be “pornographic” (but we know that’s not true). To assert that simply because something involves sex that it is “pornographic” betrays an unBiblical assumption about the nature of sexuality.

Second, the accusations that a reported “vision” is “divination” goes far beyond simply believing it wasn’t Holy Spirit inspired. It is a direct accusation of involvement in some kind of witchcraft. Therefore, to make such an accusations, especially publicly, he will need to cite the evidence that he has that the person was “divining” (i.e. summoning demons). If he can’t do that, then he needs to retract his accusations. He can say that he doesn’t believe it is of God, but to state that it is “divination” he needs evidence of involvement in some sort of spiritualism. Otherwise, the origin could simply be psychological or fictional. To accuse someone of divination is to accuse them of a crime that brought the death penalty under the old covenant.

If he can’t prove that the media was intended on eliciting lust or that acts of divination were involved, then he will need to do the Biblical thing: retract his accusation, apologize to the specific person he accused, and perhaps get some kind of spiritual help as to why he would make such an accusation. That’s true repentance.

Meanwhile, he should not be held up as an example of spiritual leadership or asked to speak at conferences.

Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
Since 6/1/09 19:00:00
7438 posts
Interesting...

I'm going to have to hear the rest of the vid. Somehow I missed all that.
I can comment on one point though: there are only a couple of places a vision can come from. I guess I can think of three--one's own mind, God, Satan. If it isn't the first two, I'm not sure it matters a whole lot what the right technical term for it is.

As for Elephant Room, the accusation that it was scripted is not a serious accusation. It's a characterization; an inference. There's nothing wrong with a scripted event. It's just that ER was initially conceived as something completely spontaneous wasn't it? But for my part, I tend to think planned things are just about always better than random things so... "scripted" is not an insult.

Edit: I don't see anything about divination or Elephant Room's scriptedness (or pornography or visions) in the transcript. So if you're accusing Phil of making assertions "without proof" it would seem that that assertion is also being made without proof. It would probably be a bit off topic though to go into a detailed discussion of views Phil has written elsewhere. Maybe start another thread on it and post a link here?

As for the idea that we should be cautious about Phil's ministry as well, it's a solid point and one I'm sure Phil would echo as well. Nobody gets it right all the time.

Offline
Since 5/8/12 16:37:45
44 posts
Hi Aaron, The accusation of

Hi Aaron,

The accusation of "pornographic divination" leveled at an evangelical pastor is not in this video. It's only that someone who makes such an inflammatory, unproven accusation likely has no reason to be held up as a spiritual leader at a conference.

You're right that there's only three sources for a vision. It could be psychological; it could be of God, or of Satan. Johnson would definitely have to disprove the first two, which to my knowledge he never has.

When making an accusation of any kind, precise terms are absolutely essential. I can't accuse someone of "adultery" and when challenged say I didn't really mean it; I really meant he has bad breath! "Let your 'yes' be 'yes'," etc., and all the Biblical commands to be honest, to not bear false witness, demand that our accusations be precisely true. So, Johnson didn't just accuse someone of being deceived by Satan (the third possible source of a vision) but of participating in "divination". That is an accusation that the person participated in some form of spiritualism, witchcraft, etc. Someone can be deceived by Satan without having done "divination". So Johnson's accusation is more than just saying the person was deceived by Satan but that the person sought demonic spirits for revelation. Johnson either needs to prove that with evidence of active "divination" on the part of the one he accused or he needs to retract and repent of the accusation.

Sir, for a Christian, every accusation we make is a "serious accusation." There are no acceptable slanders. In Revelation, everyone who "loves and practices deceit" is cast into hell. It's true that there's nothing wrong with a scripted event. That's not the point. The point is that Johnson makes accusations without any evidence that they are true. And the whole talk linked above is about him trying to rationalize his self-appointed role as someone going around making accusations. Much (if not all) of what he says above is true. But should someone who makes unsubstantiated accusations be the one entrusted with rebuking other people?

Offline
Since 6/2/09 13:04:13
1741 posts
JCarpenter, A few questions

JCarpenter,

A few questions and thoughts here:

You say When making an accusation of any kind, precise terms are absolutely essential. Okay (not actually true; you need to be clear, but okay for the sake of argument).

You say, He makes accusations that are not accurate. But your whole discussion seems to be about things that are unsubstantiated, which is different then inaccurate. So can you be precise: Is your problem that these things are allegedly unsubstantiated? Or is is that they are inaccurate?

You speak of the "pornographic divination." Perhaps you are unaware that this probably refers to Driscoll's claim that he had a visions of people engaged in sexual acts. I am not sure what else you would call it when someone claims to see a video of people performing sex acts. The issue is that Driscoll thinks these visions (the TV in his head) is supernatural (which is what divination means). That would certainly be problematic wouldn't it?

Mike Durning's picture
Offline
Since 6/2/09 10:12:11
618 posts
Pornographic

Larry wrote:
You speak of the "pornographic divination." Perhaps you are unaware that this probably refers to Driscoll's claim that he had a visions of people engaged in sexual acts. I am not sure what else you would call it when someone claims to see a video of people performing sex acts. The issue is that Driscoll thinks these visions (the TV in his head) is supernatural (which is what divination means). That would certainly be problematic wouldn't it?

I find it difficult to imagine that the Holy Spirit would be providing the information in that form.

Offline
Since 5/8/12 16:37:45
44 posts
Johnson sought the most inflammatory language

Hi Larry,

First, it is actually true that when we're making an accusation, we need to be absolutely clear; our terms have to be precise. We don't get to make vague charges against people and claim we have a right to be inflammatory or to exaggerate.

Then, you rightly ask me to be accurate. Fair enough. Something can be unsubstantiated (no proof) but still accurate. In that case, some one has guessed but guessed accurately. If someone is inaccurate, they are, by definition, unsubstantiated. I used the broader term, unsubstantiated, so as to give Mr Johnson the occasional to prove his charges if he can. I am relatively confident that he cannot and that his accusations are also, likely, inaccurate. If I stooped to use his approach, I could use much blunter, more inflammatory language.

If he's going to say that the Elephant Room was scripted, he should produce the script, or at least the testimony of someone who saw it. If he's going to publicly say that an evangelical pastor is too influenced by "Christ Rock", etc., he had better prove that he knows that to be a fact, not that it is a nice piece of rhetoric.

If he's going to accuse someone of "divination", then he needs to give positive proof that that person has participated in witchcraft, spiritualism, or something of the kind. You're inaccurate to equate "divination" with everything supernatural. We wouldn't accuse Isaiah of "divination" for his vision of chapter 6. Someone could hallucinate (and think it is supernatural) without being involved in divination. Someone could even have a demonic vision which they imagine to be inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet not have participated in "divination". Divination is an intentional act of seeking revelation other than from the one true God. It is witchcraft, spiritualism, and carries the death penalty in the Old Testament. Further, as explained above, not all accounts of sexual activity can be called "pornographic". (The Bible contains accounts of sexual activity that are not pornography. Please reread my first entry.) So there are a lot of things a claim to see visions of people involved in immorality could be called other than charging the person with involvement in witchcraft for the sake of enticing lust. It appears Mr. Johnson sought the most inflammatory language he could find without examining whether the terms he threw out were accurate.

Offline
Since 6/30/09 10:23:44
484 posts
Thanks Phil

I for one appreciated Phil's comments. The "new revelation" tactics of the continuationists are fraudulent, harmful to the testiomony of the true revelation of the WOG in the 66 inscripturated, inspired books of the protestant canon, and could be easily satanic in origin. These visions are certainly not from the one true and living God. As far as the vulgarities and preoccupation with sexual matters are concerned, it is clear that when people inbibe too many modern movies, TV programs, and pop-rock music, it is going to desensitize them as to what is appropriate or not.

Pastor Mike Harding

Offline
Since 6/2/09 13:04:13
1741 posts
Quote:First, it is actually

Thanks, JCarpenter for the response.

Quote:
First, it is actually true that when we're making an accusation, we need to be absolutely clear; our terms have to be precise.
Clear and precise are not the same things. "Raining cats and dogs" is perfectly clear; it is not in the least precise. The duty is to be clear and we can do that with a variety of linguistic options.

Quote:
We don't get to make vague charges against people and claim we have a right to be inflammatory or to exaggerate.
I agree.

Quote:
Something can be unsubstantiated (no proof) but still accurate. In that case, some one has guessed but guessed accurately.
Not at all. The fact that something is unsubstantiated means simply that. It does not mean that the person who doesn't substantiate can't. He may simply choose not to for various reasons including context and time.

Quote:
I used the broader term, unsubstantiated, so as to give Mr Johnson the occasional to prove his charges if he can. I am relatively confident that he cannot and that his accusations are also, likely, inaccurate.
I think his statements have been substantiated elsewhere.

Quote:
If he's going to say that the Elephant Room was scripted, he should produce the script, or at least the testimony of someone who saw it.
I think you are using "scripted" perhaps a different way than he is. And in language, he is the one who gets to choose since he is the speaker. I doubt he means "word for word" but rather that the general tenor was set, and there was going to be no substantive discussions.

Quote:
If he's going to publicly say that an evangelical pastor is too influenced by "Christ Rock", etc., he had better prove that he knows that to be a fact, not that it is a nice piece of rhetoric.
Having read Greg below me and now editing this, I am familiar that Driscoll is very open about his use of secular media and TV shows. He has said he listens to Chris Rock (not Christ) and other comedians because comedians and preachers are about the only occupations where people voluntarily come to here monologues. He has said he looks at magazines in the checkout lanes to see what is going on in popular culture. So Phil doesn't have to prove it. Driscoll admits it.

Quote:
If he's going to accuse someone of "divination", then he needs to give positive proof that that person has participated in witchcraft, spiritualism, or something of the kind. You're inaccurate to equate "divination" with everything supernatural.
Actually, I was just using the dictionary in which "divination" is connected to the supernatural, not necessarily to witchcraft, spiritualism, or something of the kind. However, I can imagine that Phil might be using the word to make a point--that wherever these "visions" are coming from, it probably isn't God.

Concerning divination, let me quote from the New Bible Dictionary:

Quote:
Divination is roughly the attempt to discern events that are distant in time or space, and that consequently cannot be perceived by normal means. A similar definition could be given for the seership aspect of prophecy, as exercised in, e.g., 1 Sa. 9:6–10. Hence the term could be used occasionally in a good sense, as we might speak of a prophet having clairvoyant gifts without thereby approving all forms of clairvoyance. Thus Balaam is a diviner as well as being inspired of God (Nu. 22:7; 24:1). The divination condemned in Ezk. 13:6–7, is specified as ‘lying’. In Mi. 3:6–7, 11, divining is a function of the prophets, though here also they have prostituted their gift; cf. Zc. 10:2. In Pr. 16:10 qesem (‘inspired decisions’) is used of the divine guidance given through the king.

D. R. W. Wood and I. Howard Marshall, New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Leicester, England; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996). 279.

So it is not only connected with witchcraft. Also both lots and dreams are forms of divination in the Bible, as is probably the Urim and the Thummim though we don't know how that worked.

Quote:
Further, as explained above, not all accounts of sexual activity can be called "pornographic".
This wasn't in dispute. And not really relevant. Go read Phil's words about it and I think the point is clear.

Quote:
It appears Mr. Johnson sought the most inflammatory language he could find without examining whether the terms he threw out were accurate.
I can think of a lot more inflammatory ways to say it (and Phil is way more creative than I am). But I think his descriptions, at least as you have relayed them, are accurate in the two cases I know about. The third I don't know about.

In the end, I think concern over Phil's approach is less of an issue than the issues themselves.

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since 6/2/09 20:00:32
957 posts
JCarpenter wrote: If he's

JCarpenter wrote:
If he's going to publicly say that an evangelical pastor is too influenced by "Christ Rock", etc., he had better prove that he knows that to be a fact, not that it is a nice piece of rhetoric.
He's referring to Mark Driscoll, and his source for that is Mark Driscoll himself, who has said that he watches comedians such as Chris Rock to glean from their ability to capture and hold the audience's attention through their stand-up comedy.

Just curious...are you unaware of the specific situations to which Johnson is referring, or are you aware and object to his characterization of them?

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Offline
Since 5/8/12 16:37:45
44 posts
Don't reflexively defend Johnson

Hi Mike Harding, Johnson doesn't say that an evangelical pastor's claimed visions "could be easily satanic in origin." He said they were "divination". He either needs to prove that or admit he made it up.

Hi Larry, Johnson wasn't using figures of speech but making very specific accusations: an event was scripted, a pastor watches too much "Chris Rock", has committed "divination." He needs to prove these things. If he can't, then he's slandered and should be disciplined by his church. I've never seen his proof. If he was going to give real evidence of divination -- actual participation in witchcraft (or the like) -- I would imagine he would have done so when he wrote the original article, or at least told us where that proof was. He didn't. If you've seen it, please link it. But only the real proof, not just more groundless accusations.
Johnson says that the evangelical pastor imbibes too much of such secular media. Looking at stuff in the check out line is not too much. Mr. Driscoll has not said he takes in too much. So you're wrong to say that Johnson doesn't have to prove his accusations. You're only accepting Johnson's judgment with no evidence.
I know of no instance in which "divination" is used of seeking God; your source doesn't produce any. So my definition stands. We don't get to redefine our words after we've leveled an accusation simply because we're too proud to admit we shouldn't have said it in the first place.
Johnson calls it "pornographic" which is inaccurate. If the accounts are not pornographic, then Johnson's charge is false. So it is very much relevant whether or not the accounts are pornographic. He must prove that accusation, retract it, or be subject to church discipline.
Please provide me an example of a more inflammatory description than accusing an evangelical pastor of "pornographic divination".
Frankly, I think you've just sought to reflexively defend this man who made an indefensible accusation.

Hi Greg Long, see above. Johnson has to prove that the people he is accusing have done this too much, to excess, that he's allowed it to shape their values, etc. At the Aeropagus, the Apostle Paul quoted from Greek dramas which likely he heard by attending those plays. I suppose Johnson would have accused the Apostle Paul of imbibing too much Greek drama.

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since 6/2/09 20:00:32
957 posts
JCarpenter wrote: Hi Greg

JCarpenter wrote:
Hi Greg Long, see above. Johnson has to prove that the people he is accusing have done this too much, to excess, that he's allowed it to shape their values, etc. At the Aeropagus, the Apostle Paul quoted from Greek dramas which likely he heard by attending those plays. I suppose Johnson would have accused the Apostle Paul of imbibing too much Greek drama.
Mark Driscoll has been influenced by Chris Rock. That is a fact because Mark Driscoll himself has said so. Johnson says he is influenced "too much" by Chris Rock? (I don't know; I haven't watched the above video and am only going by what you said Johnson said.) That is Johnson's opinion. How exactly would he "prove" that Driscoll has been influenced by Chris Rock "too much"?

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
Since 6/1/09 19:00:00
7438 posts
A little hair splitting?

Quote:
Hi Mike Harding, Johnson doesn't say that an evangelical pastor's claimed visions "could be easily satanic in origin." He said they were "divination". He either needs to prove that or admit he made it up.

If indeed the vision is of Satanic origin, it's kind of trivial whether it's "divination" or some other sort of badness.

But for what it's worth here's Oxford Concise English Dictionary...

Quote:

divination /ˌdɪvɪˈneɪʃ(ə)n/
■ noun the practice of divining or seeking knowledge by supernatural means.
– DERIVATIVES divinatory adjective
Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
And here's "divining" ("divine 1" is an adjective)
Quote:
divine 2
■ verb
1 discover by guesswork or intuition.
2 have supernatural or magical insight into (the future).
3 discover (water) by dowsing.

We're kind of off topic for the thread, but if we're going to put Phil Johnson on trial, it would seem that links to where he makes the alleged unsubtantiated/inaccurate accusations against Driscoll would be necessary as a minimum in order to do that.
If that happens, I think we'll discover that Phil's usually got links to the stuff he's referring to. It's easy enough for people to follow those and form their own conclusions about Phil's evaluation.

Offline
Since 6/2/09 13:04:13
1741 posts
Quote: Hi Larry, Johnson

Quote:
Hi Larry, Johnson wasn't using figures of speech but making very specific accusations: an event was scripted, a pastor watches too much "Chris Rock", has committed "divination."
But is any of that disputable? I suppose you can quibble over "too much." But that would be a reach.

Quote:
I've never seen his proof.
So it's not that Phil is wrong; it's that you haven't seen proof? Those are two very different things. Have you heard Driscoll's explanation of these visions? Have you heard him talk about the influence of pop culture, and heard the pop culture references in his sermons? How familiar are you with this?

Quote:
real evidence of divination -- actual participation in witchcraft (or the like)
Again, I refer you to (1) your incorrect definition, and (2) the context in which it was said. This is actually the least controversial of the three things. Driscoll plainly claims that he had supernatural revelation concerning these things. That, by definition, is divination. And given the content, it was pornographic divination.

Quote:
Johnson says that the evangelical pastor imbibes too much of such secular media. Looking at stuff in the check out line is not too much. Mr. Driscoll has not said he takes in too much. So you're wrong to say that Johnson doesn't have to prove his accusations. You're only accepting Johnson's judgment with no evidence.
Remember, when you said it, I didn't know who you were talking about so I specifically said I couldn't comment on it. In other words, I didn't know what the evidence was and therefore had to demur on commenting on it. However, when Greg clarified it, I commented because I have heard it straight from Driscoll's mouth on numerous occasions, both live and on recording. I have read it in his books (such as Confessions, p70). If you want to harp on the definition of "too much," you can, I guess. But I don't think that's a productive tack.

And out of curiosity, why is Phil Johnson "Johnson" and Mark Driscoll is "Mr. Driscoll"?

Quote:
I know of no instance in which "divination" is used of seeking God; your source doesn't produce any. So my definition stands. We don't get to redefine our words after we've leveled an accusation simply because we're too proud to admit we shouldn't have said it in the first place
Okay. I don't know what else to say. These are scholars who are published, peer-reviewed, highly respected, with advanced degrees, etc. And you disagree.

Not to pile on, but let me quote from the NIDOTTE: "Some of these forms of divination appear to be have been accepted in ancient Israel without condemnation (e.g., cups, lots, arrows, and dreams). ... Laban "learned by divination" that God had blessed him because of Jacob's service with him (Gen 30:27)" (3:946). Horsnell goes on to offer a suggestion as to why "some forms of omen divination were accepted in Israel whereas magic was consistently condemned ... it may be due in part to the difference in nature between magic and divination. Magic sought to manipulate the divine world to satisfy human needs; it was human-centered. In contract, divination sought revelation from the divine world; it was more divinely centered. Ancient Israel's Yahwistic faith allowed for divine revelation but not for the manipulation of the divine world" (3:946).

The casting of lots (a method of divination) was used in Acts 1 to seek the Lord's guidance about a replacement for Judas. It's used on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16). It is used in dividing the land (Josh 18:6). Prov 16:33 says every lot is from the Lord.

So I would say your definition doesn't stand. You can't just declare something to be so. The fact is that people who know a whole lot disagree with you. Perhaps you have some expertise in ANE religious culture, and if so, feel free to offer some rebuttal other than "My definition stands."

Furthermore, this discussion misses the whole point that Driscoll claims video images of people engaged in sexual acts are transmitted to the TV in his head. And he claims that's from God.

And you want to focus on whether "pornographic divination" is the right word for it?

Quote:
Johnson calls it "pornographic" which is inaccurate.
How do you know it's inaccurate? I have read the accounts and heard Driscoll give them, and while I am no expert on pornographic divination, I hold to the sentiments of Justice Potter Stewart who said, "I know it when I see it." You want to focus on a very narrow understanding and in so doing I think you again completely miss the point.

Quote:
If the accounts are not pornographic, then Johnson's charge is false. So it is very much relevant whether or not the accounts are pornographic. He must prove that accusation, retract it, or be subject to church discipline.
So if your accusations are not proven (and I think clearly they have not been), should we subject you to church discipline?

Quote:
Please provide me an example of a more inflammatory description than accusing an evangelical pastor of "pornographic divination".
It wouldn't be appropriate on this forum, though I could point you to some of Driscoll's writings and messages.

Quote:
Frankly, I think you've just sought to reflexively defend this man who made an indefensible accusation.
Nah, not at all. I can count the number of times I have heard Phil speak on one hand and still have enough fingers hold a decent sized hot dog with chili and slaw on it. I have exchanged emails with him one time when I learned we had a connection. But I happen to know a little bit about the topic here since I have listened to probably more than 200 sermons from Driscoll including a few live ones (though most more than 6-8 years ago), and I have read four or five of his books.

So in the end, I just think you are barking up the wrong tree with this one. Phil Johnson is not the problem here (though he may be elsewhere ... just throwing that in so I don't lose my fundy cred here).

Offline
Since 5/8/12 16:37:45
44 posts
Don't reflexively defend Johnson, 2

Hi Greg, "How exactly would he "prove" that Driscoll has been influenced by Chris Rock "too much"?" That's a good question. Since Johnson made the accusation, it is he who needs to answer it. If he can't prove it, then he needs to stop making accusations he can't prove.
By the way, Johnson doesn't make that charge here but did so on his facebook page. There he also said that the Elephant Room was "scripted". He didn't provide any evidence of a script.

Hi Aaron Blumer,
You: "If indeed the vision is of Satanic origin, it's kind of trivial whether it's "divination" or some other sort of badness." That's completely false. To be guilty of divination one must intentionally be seeking revelation from some supernatural source other than the Lord. That would mean some kind of witchcraft or spiritualism. I suppose someone could honestly believe a vision is from God but it really be Satanic. (The Lord Jesus told us there would be false miracles that would deceive nearly everyone, only not the elect.) That would not be divination. Nor would a psychological phenomena. Or a lie. And this is if we assume cessationism. To accuse someone of "divination" is to accuse them of intentional involvement in some kind of spiritualism.
As for seeing the original article, google: Phil Johnson "Pornographic Divination". Then go to his facebook page and look for all the occasions when he makes accusations and see if they are substantiated.
I've noted that you've not defended the pornography charge or provided an example of a more inflammatory description than accusing an evangelical pastor of "pornographic divination".
Again, please don't reflexively defend this man who made an indefensible accusation.

Offline
Since 5/8/12 16:37:45
44 posts
Hi Larry,Frankly, I think

Hi Larry,

Frankly, I think you're being disingenuous to try to excuse Johnson for the "divination" charge. You know perfectly well he wasn't saying that the evangelical pastor was getting a gift from the Holy Spirit. He used an irresponsible and inflammatory term to create the effect he wanted without any factual bases. Ditto for the pornographic charge, etc.

Phil Johnson is the problem because he makes baseless accusations. Please give an example where Mr. Driscoll has publicly accused another evangelical leader in public, by name of something similar. You said you could.

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since 6/2/09 20:00:32
957 posts
JCarpenter wrote: Hi

JCarpenter wrote:
Hi Larry,

Frankly, I think you're being disingenuous to try to excuse Johnson for the "divination" charge. You know perfectly well he wasn't saying that the evangelical pastor was getting a gift from the Holy Spirit. He used an irresponsible and inflammatory term to create the effect he wanted without any factual bases. Ditto for the pornographic charge, etc.

Phil Johnson is the problem because he makes baseless accusations. Please give an example where Mr. Driscoll has publicly accused another evangelical leader in public, by name of something similar. You said you could.

Can you prove that Larry is being disingenuous? If not you need to retract the charge and apologize.

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since 6/2/09 20:00:32
957 posts
JCarpenter wrote:Hi Greg,

JCarpenter wrote:
Hi Greg, "How exactly would he "prove" that Driscoll has been influenced by Chris Rock "too much"?" That's a good question. Since Johnson made the accusation, it is he who needs to answer it. If he can't prove it, then he needs to stop making accusations he can't prove.
By the way, Johnson doesn't make that charge here but did so on his facebook page. There he also said that the Elephant Room was "scripted". He didn't provide any evidence of a script.
I'm not sure if you're familiar with Johnson, but he has a blog with hundreds of posts, including probably dozens concerning Mark Driscoll. Just go to http://teampyro.blogspot.com/. Several of his posts use quotes from Driscoll himself that Johnson finds crude, offensive, and unbecoming of a minister of the Gospel. I'm not saying I agree with him on all points, but the point here is that he has given plenty of evidence to support his opinion that Driscoll has been influenced "too much" (again, this is subjective) by Chris Rock. There is obviously no way he can "prove" it to your satisfaction. Stating that you disagree is fine and should be enough.

P.S. Somehow I'm guessing you do know who Johnson is and exactly what he's said about Driscoll but you disagree and have a bone to pick with him, but that's just my opinion. I can't prove it.

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Offline
Since 5/8/12 16:37:45
44 posts
Johnson makes false accusations

Hi Greg,

I think it's obvious what Johnson meant when he accused an evangelical pastor of "pornographic divination". He wasn't using the word "divination" in a morally neutral sense and everyone knows that. Besides, I prefaced by saying "I think" and your failure to recognize that does not suggest you are honestly examining the problem of Johnson's unsupported rhetoric but simply trying to score points for your side. But I suspect that if Johnson attacked you the same way he seems he to feel he has the right to attack everyone else, then I think you'd be considerably less tolerant of Johnson's rhetoric.

I'm familiar with Johnson's web-site and find it useful for the Spurgeon archives. Other than that, I find his postings offensive for his repeated unproven accusations. I suspect that if I did much substantial research into his postings I would find a lot more. I take his posting linked here to be an attempt at justifying his self-appointed role as an attack dog in evangelicalism. Further, since I have a Ph.D. in church history, I find his handling of the subject to be extremely shallow.

Let me put it plainly. The accusation that a prominent pastor is guilty of "pornographic divination" is simply false. Until he repents of it, no serious Christian should have anything to do with man.

The accusation that the Elephant Room was "scripted" is doubtful at best and almost certainly false. Another example of irresponsible rhetoric. I personally didn't care for the Elephant Room and am not a fan of MacDonald (except that I saw Johnson attacking him now too) but that's beside the point.

The accusation that a prominent pastor has been too much influenced by popular culture is not something he could really know. He doesn't have to prove it to my satisfaction but if he's going to make accusations, he has to be able to prove his accusations in some way. But he doesn't seem to have any concept that he is accountable for his words. He can't prove it at all and doesn't need to be making it. I challenged him to prove it on his facebook page and got promptly banned from his page. It frankly reeks of the kind of self-righteous superiority that is the opposite of what a mature Christian should show.

I find Johnson's tactics and rhetoric profoundly anti-Christian; he seems to be a man who loves to quarrel and vehemently accuse others but I doubt he could take the kind of abuse he loves to dish out. Why he would be invited to speak at a Christian conference is beyond me, except that it is a display of what is wrong and so offensive about modern fundamentalism.

Mike Durning's picture
Offline
Since 6/2/09 10:12:11
618 posts
Fascinating

I just wanted to say that I am really surprised at this discussion being on SI in the form it is.

I'm not much into movement think, but...
Phil Johnson, a Conservative Evangelical (CE) critiques other CE's on a Fundy website.
The discussion on the Fundy site is whether Phil was being too harsh.

Strange way for it to unfold here.

Offline
Since 6/2/09 07:12:34
299 posts
Full disclosure

Might be helpful, JCarpenter, to disclose that your church was involved in the Real Marriage Tour with Driscoll (by the way, may want to udate the website since the event's over). Helps me understand where you're coming from, anyway.

http://www.covenantcaswell.org/

Offline
Since 5/8/12 16:37:45
44 posts
Not too harsh but false

Hi Mike,
My problem with Johnson isn't that he's "too harsh". One can be very harsh if one is correct. We can't get much more harsh than Paul was to the Judaizers in Galatians. (Johnson would probably accuse Paul of being "crude" for telling the Judaizers to castrate themselves!). My problem is that Johnson is just wrong. No proof of "pornographic divination", scripted Elephant Room, too much "Chris Rock", etc., just irresponsible rhetoric.

The topic here is Johnson and his accusations, nothing else.

Chip Van Emmerik's picture
Offline
Since 6/4/09 13:10:12
1726 posts
Quote: Is your relationship a

Quote:
Is your relationship a wreck or just in need of some regular maintenance? Covenant Reformed Baptist Church (Providence, NC) would like to offer you a free opportunity to experience powerful, practical, and Biblical teaching on marriage, relationships, and sex, as well as participate in Q&A sessions with Pastor Mark Driscoll, author of the recent best-seller "Real Marriage: The Truth About Sex, Friendship, and life together.

From JCarpenter's church website. As mentioned previously, seems you have an ax to grind here. Noticed you only joined SI a day or two ago, just so you could post on this thread. I assume you have already spoken to Phil Johnson about your concerns, in Christian charity and an attempt to win him over to your way of thinking, before disparaging him here with baseless accusations.

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

Susan R's picture
Offline
Since 5/6/09 20:48:52
4367 posts
Terms

Driscoll claims to have had vivid supernatural visions of couples having sex. Sounds like pornographic divination to me. I also understand the term 'scripted' to mean that something was planned beforehand to some degree, and not necessarily read from a screenplay- it is a common usage. Also not a problem.

Phil Johnson has offered his opinions and insights, and Mr. Carpenter has offered his. Sounds fair to me.

Blogging at Susan Raber Online

Aaron Blumer's picture
Offline
Since 6/1/09 19:00:00
7438 posts
@Mike

It is a bit surreal.

... on the other hand, some have been trying to say for years that Phil is really a fundamentalist. And if you get accused of wrongly attacking Christian brethren, that just about automatically gets you into the club. ;)

Let me see if I can summarize the situation:

  • We have an unproven accusation that Phil has made unproven accusations against Mark Driscoll.
  • The unproven accusation against Phil relies on very narrow definitions of "divination" and "pornography."
  • Several posts have provided independent data on the meaning of "divination."
  • It's been observed that most people consider video-like viewing of couples engaged in sex to be over the line into porn regardless of the intent of those involved.
  • In response, we pretty much have repetition of the unproven accusation that Phil makes unproven accusations.

So I think we're safe to assume that that topic is just going to go in circles... might as well abandon it.

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since 6/2/09 20:00:32
957 posts
JCarpenter before you go any

JCarpenter before you go any further you need to respond to Larry's post point by point rather than ignoring him and continuing to make the same assertions.

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Offline
Since 5/8/12 16:37:45
44 posts
Saddening

It's saddening to see supposed spiritual leaders defending what is at the least Johnson's sloppy use of language and what is perhaps even out-right slander.
The fact is we all know that by using the term "divination", Johnson was accusing a prominent evangelical pastor of consulting the supernatural out-side of God (which can only be Satan). It's just when pressed to be precise about it that some try to change the meaning of the word. See above about "pornographic". I think any attempt to defend the use of that term is simply not honest.

Mr. Chip Van Emmerik has accused me of "baseless accusations" which is clearly a false accusation as the basis is Johnson's public false accusations.

Susan tries to redefine "scripted" to mean "planned beforehand to some degree". That's absurd. That the Elephant Room was planned that the participants would come together and speak about various topics is obvious. Johnson was saying that the conversation itself was planned in some detail, that's what scripted means. And if you're to have any integrity, you have to hold him to account for his language.

@Aaron Blumer,
*The terms that Johnson used, "pornographic divination", "scripted", etc. are not "unproved" and it is obvious that they are inaccurate and inflammatory.
*The proven accusation against Johnson relies on the common-sense understanding of those words.
* If you're suggesting that Johnson was using "divination" in a morally neutral way, to suggest any kind of consultation with the supernatural, including that of God, I think you are being disingenuous.
* That's just absurd. Pornography is all about intent.
* The only reason the facts needs to be repeated is because of the failure of some "fundamentalists" to cherish integrity and accuracy in our language.
Yeah, why not abandon being honest and holding people to account if they aren't going to admit their "side" was wrong. And yes, it's all about you guys taking sides.

Hi Greg,
Thanks for telling me what I must do. (sarcasm!) You suggested I ignored Larry which is false. And that you make a false suggestion gets right to the issue that is at stake: the fundamentalist penchant for throwing out accusations for effect rather than for truth. I responded to the heart of what Larry said already, challenging him on the disingenuous attempt to re-interpret "divination" to mean something other than what we all knew Johnson used it for. I asked Larry by private message to show that more inflammatory language could have been used. He said he could think of more inflammatory language but didn't want to do so in public. But as yet, he has not done so in private. Also, I challenged him by private message to give me an example of Pastor Mark Driscoll publicly slandering another evangelical leader by name using similar inflammatory language. As yet, he hasn't done so. He said he could. But I'm fairly confident that he cannot and that his assertion of that he could was false. That is, that he too carelessly used his words for the effect he wanted, without regard for its truth.

The core issue here is whether we are going to be people of honesty and integrity (not to mention charity). Or are we going to be like Phil Johnson and throw around over-heated rhetoric, regardless of its accuracy but simply to get the effect we want.

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since 6/2/09 20:00:32
957 posts
Just to repeat one point,

Just to repeat one point, several have given you dictionary definitions that would fit Johnson's use of "divination," and you just dismiss them out of hand with your own opinion.

Now you are revealing the content of private messages between yourself and Larry? And calling him disingenuous? He may or may not be wrong, but how do you know the motives of his heart by questioning his sincereity in the statements he has made?

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Offline
Since 5/6/09 20:45:47
3666 posts
--Official Mod Note--

--Official Mod Note--

The article by Phil Johnson in question ( http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/08/pornographic-divination.html Pornographic Divination ) was posted as a filing on 8.15.2011; please move discussion of that topic to http://sharperiron.org/filings/8-15-11/19843 ]that thread .

There's http://sharperiron.org/filings/2-21-12/21831 ]another thread dedicated to a review of "Real Marriage" as well, if anyone wants to talk about the book.

I think Mike and Phil (and other mods ;) ) would prefer that this thread remain on topic.

Quote:

I just wanted to say that I am really surprised at this discussion being on SI in the form it is.
I'm not much into movement think, but...
Phil Johnson, a Conservative Evangelical (CE) critiques other CE's on a Fundy website.
The discussion on the Fundy site is whether Phil was being too harsh.

Strange way for it to unfold here.

Yes, it IS strange to watch, isn't it? I think I prefer the old kind of fundamentalism to this.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Offline
Since 5/8/12 16:37:45
44 posts
Greg: get honest or get out of ministry

Greg,
Even the dictionary definitions make "divination" about consulting the supernatural in some way. You know very well that Johnson was not using the term to mean that he thought Driscoll was consulting the Holy Spirit. If you deny that, I think you're just lying.

Further, you accused me of "revealing the content of private messages". I only said what I asked him to do, which was essentially the same things he publicly said he could do. I didn't reveal anything he said; I couldn't because he hasn't responded yet. You're accusation sounds like that's what I did. And I think you've revealed why you don't find Johnson's inaccurate and inflammatory rhetoric to be reprehensible. You're doing it yourself. We don't need more dishonest men in ministry.

Offline
Since 5/8/12 16:37:45
44 posts
Johnson's irresponsible accusations

The issue here is not Pastor Driscoll at all but Johnson's repeated use of inaccurate and inflammatory language in his accusations. The point is that Johnson makes accusations without any evidence that they are true. And the whole talk linked above is about him trying to rationalize his self-appointed role as someone going around making accusations. Much (if not all) of what he says above is true. But should someone who makes unsubstantiated accusations be the one entrusted with rebuking other people?

Greg Long's picture
Offline
Since 6/2/09 20:00:32
957 posts
You are correct, you have the

You are correct, you have the right to reveal the content of your own private messages to someone else. My point was, if it was a private message to Larry why did you tell us about it publicly?

And my question still stands...how do you know the motives of his heart so that you can call him "disingenous"?

And now I'm "dishonest"? Rather than assuming I made a mistake in my understanding of your private conversation with Larry, you assume that I am purposefully lying about it?

*****************

This is sure how to win friends as a new person on a message board! Smile

------------------------------
Pastor of Adult Ministries

Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Religion
Liberty University Online

Alex Guggenheim's picture
Offline
Since 6/2/09 04:58:18
1585 posts
JC I believe you see what

JC

I believe you see what many see about Johnson and Pyromaniacs at times. But I am afraid you have picked the wrong time as it relates to the intent of the OP and your points themselves being but a mild sample of some of the boundary violations of the aforementioned. I believe there will be better opportunities for a more satisfying address in the future which would be of greater service. As well, some of the people with whom you are engaging rarely give ground even in the face of the obvious and they get to write or re-write the rules of engagement as well as interpret amd apply them as they see fit. So as one who shares some of your concerns (though I agree with Johnson'sgeneral assessment of Driscoll and believe him unfit for the Oastorate or as a Teacher at large) please allow me to let you know your points have been clear but in service to the thread may you preserve your full engagement for a later date when this is directly at issue. I say this merely as a commentator and not as one who would attempt to act as a quasi-moderator.

Offline
Since 5/8/12 16:37:45
44 posts
then show some out-rage at Johnson's rhetoric

Hi Greg,

Larry said he could do certain things (think of more inflammatory expressions, etc) but didn't want to do so publicly. So I asked him to do so privately. As yet, nothing.

Frankly, we all know what Johnson means by "divination". He's not using that term in a morally neutral way. Anyone who suggests that he is, as some have tried here, are being disingenuous. We all know that "scripted" means more than just arranging the meeting and the topics. We should know that "pornographic" doesn't just refer to any account of sex.. We should know that judging someone as being too influenced by pop culture needs some proof.

First, you suggested I ignored Larry which was false. Then you suggested I revealed private correspondence which was obviously false because I prominently said he hadn't even responded yet. This is what you -- and Johnson -- don't seem to understand: Before making an accusation you need to check if it is actually true and then use your terms carefully to ensure as to the best of your ability that you are telling the truth. Being a rhetorical bomb-thrower who responds with careless, knee-jerk accusations couched in terms employed for their attention-grabbing impact mighty play well in some corners of fundamentalism. But it's just plain wrong.

Susan R's picture
Offline
Since 5/6/09 20:48:52
4367 posts
Definitions

Quote:
Susan tries to redefine "scripted" to mean "planned beforehand to some degree". That's absurd. That the Elephant Room was planned that the participants would come together and speak about various topics is obvious. Johnson was saying that the conversation itself was planned in some detail, that's what scripted means. And if you're to have any integrity, you have to hold him to account for his language.

What is absurd is your refusal to accept any other definition than that of which you personally approve. 'Scripted' can mean everything from reading from a written text, to a vague outline that serves as a guide so that certain goals are accomplished.

Ditto the use of 'divination' and 'pornography'. If viewing people having sex isn't porn, I can't (and don't want to) imagine what would qualify. If claiming that God sent you a supernatural vision isn't divination, especially when it is WAY outside of Scriptural principles and patterns, then again, we are at an impasse.

Accusing the people in this thread of being dishonest and lacking integrity has the Irony Patrol on Red Alert. You might want to refrain from unfounded accusations while blasting someone for making what you believe to be unfounded accusations.

Blogging at Susan Raber Online

Offline
Since 5/6/09 20:45:47
3666 posts
Mod Note 2

Just as a reminder, all SI users are expected to read and obey http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forum-comment-policy ]the site comment policy .

Quote:
C. Do not engage in rude or other un-Christlike conduct, including—but not limited to the following:

1. derogatory name-calling or attacks on the motives of other participants
2. malicious ridiculing of other participants
3. focusing negatively on the people involved in the discussion rather than the topic
4. intentionally disrupting a discussion or posting off topic
5. posting criticism, speculation, etc. in threads about persons recently deceased

If this thread cannot stay on topic and participants will not refrain from personal attacks, the moderators will act accordingly. Consider this an official warning.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

Offline
Since 5/8/12 16:37:45
44 posts
Thanks Alex

Hi Alex,
Thanks for the message and your insights. I think I've said all I need and should probably heed your advice now (unless something new arises). I'd be interested in what other examples of Johnson's inaccurate attacks you might have. As a moderator said above, I don't think this is the place for discussing Driscol (or how may or may not pass BIBLICAL criteria for ministry). It does, however, seem the place for discussing Johnson's rhetoric, tactics, how he's actually practiced the kind of "ministry" he's encouraging in the link above.

Offline
Since 5/8/12 16:37:45
44 posts
Rule number 1

Thanks for a reminder of those rules. Wouldn't rule #1 prevent Johnson from posting here if one of the many other evangelical pastors he doesn't like were also here? And that's the point of all this: that Johnson's repeated public behavior may not be allowed on this or many other message boards.

Offline
Since 6/4/09 09:00:14
303 posts
I'll answer this one

JCarpenter wrote:
Also, I challenged him by private message to give me an example of Pastor Mark Driscoll publicly slandering another evangelical leader by name using similar inflammatory language. As yet, he hasn't done so. He said he could. But I'm fairly confident that he cannot and that his assertion of that he could was false. That is, that he too carelessly used his words for the effect he wanted, without regard for its truth.

The core issue here is whether we are going to be people of honesty and integrity (not to mention charity). Or are we going to be like Phil Johnson and throw around over-heated rhetoric, regardless of its accuracy but simply to get the effect we want.


Driscoll has linked cessationism to deism, atheism, and worldliness. It really doesn't matter whether he names someone by name or not -- everyone can name some cessationists. That is inflammatory language, throwing around "over-heated rhetoric, regardless of its accuracy but simply to get the effect he wanted."

He also bashed UK Christian leaders. He didn't use any names -- he bashed all of them. Everybody in the UK lacks courage. Thank you, Mark. It's easy for a mega-church guy to talk about courage -- he doesn't have a clue. Sorry, but you aren't going to find too many "Friends of Driscoll" in the UK these days. As one UK pastor said to me, "His shtick is growing old."

Offline
Since 6/2/09 13:04:13
1741 posts
JCarpenter, I think there has

JCarpenter, I think there has been enough said here to point out some major flaws in your approach. Then we find out that you have a vested and non-objective interest in defending Driscoll because of apparent association with him. This leads me to wonder if there is anything that would convince you that there are some severe problems. You have already rejected English dictionaries, Hebrew dictionaries, and Bible dictionaries in favor of your own definitions, and you want to us to reject other things as well. It reminds me of another occasion when someone was shown the dictionary on multiple occasions and yet swore the dictionary was wrong and they were right. As Alex says, it is refusing to give ground in the face of the obvious. You want to focus on the words, but I don't really think the words used to describe the issues are the issues. Words are simply how we describe things. What matter are the things themselves.

I am not trying to excuse Phil. And I am not disingenous. I don't really care one way or the other, though I happen to think he was correct on this, generally. I think you are working off your biases. You want to shoot the messenger.

Your missing the point about the divination discussion. Divination is always connected to the supernatural, but not always to witchcraft. That something is not connected to witchcraft doesn't mean that it is from the Holy Spirit. There are also some approved uses of divination. As has already been cited a couple of time, divination is knowledge by supernatural means. And that is what Driscoll was claiming. The question is whether or not these stories are actually true, and if so, where did the knowledge come from? Do you believe that Jesus gave Driscoll a TV show in his head of people having sex? I am dubious about that. Scripture records a fair number of visions. I don't recall any of this nature. Furthermore, I am not sure what the purpose of talking about that publicly is.

I know Johnson was not attributing these visions to the Holy Spirit. But Driscoll was (Jesus actually). And that was Johnson's point, I think. Driscoll was claiming ongoing revelation from Jesus and it was pornographic in nature, something that is wrong on two fronts. You say there's no factual basis for that, but I honestly don't understand that. Driscoll claimed supernatural revelation (hence, divination by definition) of people engaged in sexual acts (hence, pornographic). Those are not disputed by any one (except you apparently). It's on YouTube. You can see it yourself.

As for other ways to say it, I did not say Driscoll had accused other evangelical leaders with similar stuff (though JG gives some examples). I said there were worse ways to say it, and my reference to Driscoll was his well known penchant for flamboyant and excessive speech which can be documented all over. In other words, Driscoll has given us plenty of "worse ways to say things." He has even apologized for it, such as at Desiring God in 2008. So he admits my point.

You say that The point is that Johnson makes accusations without any evidence that they are true. Yet it has already been pointed out that (1) you admit that you haven't seen the evidence (which is different than evidence not existing), and (2) the evidence has been offered and you want to deny it based on your definitions. I suppose you can dispute the interpretation of the evidence.

To top it off you say, And the whole talk linked above is about him trying to rationalize his self-appointed role as someone going around making accusations. This leads me to wonder who appointed you to go around making accusations against Phil (or me for that matter). Why are you allowed to make these accusations but Phil is not? I don't mean that in a snarky way. It just seems inconsistent. I wonder if the real issue perhaps is not what Phil says, but who he says it about.

I would encourage a step back, a slower pace towards condemning someone else's contributions, and a more discerning and thoughtful look at the actual issues rather than the terms used.

One of the ironies here is that you want precision, but when I offered a very precise definition, you objected instead preferring a broadbrush that subsumes all divination under the one definition you want so you can make your point. When I ask you to be precise, you demur, such as making the distinction between you not knowing or seeing evidence vs. evidence not existing. While you charge others will careless and unsubstantiated charges, you appear to be making them yourself such as when you accuse me of being disingenuous and reflexively defending Johnson, when I don't really even care.

So I will end with that hopefully, unless something else is directed at me specifically.

Pastork's picture
Offline
Since 3/18/10 13:40:42
122 posts
Well said, Larry.

Having read this whole discussion, and having followed the issues with both Johnson and Driscoll in the past, I have to say that I agree with Larry here. And, for what it's worth, although I am not a convinced cessationist, I couldn't agree more with the critiques of Driscoll by Johnson and others concerning Driscoll's supposed visions from Jesus.

At any rate, thanks Larry for bringing more light than heat to this discussion.

Offline
Since 5/8/12 16:37:45
44 posts
Don't Chang the subject

Both the prior posters are trying to change the subject from Johnson's irresponsible rhetoric. The false use of "divination", "pornographic" (and to say that any depiction of sexuality is "pornographic" is absurd), "scripted", etc., is dealt with above. That some here refuse to honestly admit the meaning of the terms as Johnson uses them is regrettable and likely rooted in a party-spirit rather than a desire to be honest. The issue here is nothing other than Johnson's baseless accusations. I've stated three examples which Alex, above, says are a "mild sample of some of the boundary violations of" Johnson, et al. We would probably do better to move on to other examples he (or others) might have.

The topic here is Johnson and his fitness to fill the kind of ministry he describes above. Please honor the moderator's wishes expressed above, stay on topic and please don't resort to the kind of Johnson-like rhetoric that are not allowed by the rules of this forum.

Offline
Since 6/2/09 13:04:13
1741 posts
Quote: irresponsible

Quote:
irresponsible rhetoric ... false use ... absurd ... refuse to honestly admit ... party-spirit rather than a desire to be honest ... baseless accusations ... Johnson-like rhetoric
All in just one post from a guy who is concerned about the use of "irresponsible and inflammatory" language ... Priceless ... :~

Offline
Since 5/8/12 16:37:45
44 posts
all true

Hi Larry,
As I said above, I'm all in favor of strong language when it is accurate. My terms are used accurately, defended above. Johnson's are not. By the way, I'm still waiting for the more inflammatory description you said you could think of and examples from Johnson's victim you said you could provide. Or were you not making claims accurately?

Pages

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.