2012 StandPoint Conference Session 1: A Bridge Too Far

Speaker: Phil Johnson
Companion paper here.

18132 reads

There are 99 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

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. Wink

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

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.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

JCarpenter's picture

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

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?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Jay's picture

--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 Wink ) 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

JCarpenter's picture

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.

JCarpenter's picture

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

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

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Alex Guggenheim's picture

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.

JCarpenter's picture

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

EditorModerator

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.

Jay's picture

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

JCarpenter's picture

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.

JCarpenter's picture

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.

JG's picture

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."

Larry's picture

Moderator

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

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.

JCarpenter's picture

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.

Larry's picture

Moderator

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 ... :~

JCarpenter's picture

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?

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

folks have to be able to call their brethren to account for their actions. Of course there needs to be a basis for those admonitions, and that basis is Scripture. But we can't always guarantee that everyone will agree on the fine points of what is legitimate rebuke (ie Paul to Peter) and what is slander. It is evident that many folks here believe that Phil Johnson has not crossed that line, and that there is enough evidence to warrant a public rebuke of some of Driscoll's teachings. You disagree, and that is fine too. What is not fine is saying that the people who don't agree with your assessment are dishonest, lacking integrity, etc...

Quote:
to say that any depiction of sexuality is "pornographic" is absurd

To whom are you speaking? Did anyone say this anywhere in this thread? NO. Driscoll claims to have watched, via his own inner Jesus Channel, people engaged in sexual acts. That is not 'any' depiction of sexuality, that is watching the intimate act itself, and what's more, claiming God beamed it into your brain. No one is changing the subject- you are simply refusing to respectfully engage with the opinions and insights of other posters, as well as some indisputable facts, in favor of your own personal Vocabulary War- which is unfortunate, because of the preponderance of evidence that contradicts your very narrow definitions.

Back to the subject of how/when/why to rebuke- if we could draw a big black behavioral boundary line with a Sharpie, that would be great. But we can't, so we do our best, using Scripture to guide us. In any case, when disagreement occurs, understanding is better reached by discussion of the issues and taking the time to seriously considering each other's POV.

Shaynus's picture

I don't like Johnson's inflammatory style (small joke, based on his blog name). He's often right, but he also turns me off with his consistently negative tone. I think I'd listen better to him if he had a wider range of style, and reserved harsher tone for the real wolves, and was less harsh on brothers with whom he merely disagrees.

I mean his blog is named Pyromaniacs. There's a reason for that name.

JCarpenter's picture

Like Shaynus, I largely agree with Johnson but dislike his treatment of what should be brothers as if they were wolves. One of the few sins we are specifically told to discipline in the church, besides unrepentant sexually immorality, is divisiveness (Titus 3:9f).

As for Susan, Alex above noted that some of the folks here are incorrigible (unteachable) and that not only am I right about Johnson but that my examples are mild. An example of a disingenuous redefinition of a term in order to support Johnson is your attempt to redefine "scripted" to simply mean a meeting and topic was arranged. That's not what Johnson meant. And I think you really know that but instead of being willing to call one of your "side" to account, you do verbal gymnastics to defend him.
If merely seeing a sexual act is pornographic then since God sees all things, by your definition, God is a viewer of pornography. That's an abhorrent thought but necessary given your definition. I defined pornography in my first post above. It is media with the intent to incite lust. If you would have been serious about the use of terms, you would have dealt with that but, of course, that would have forced you into accepting the fact that Johnson used the term irresponsibly. That doesn't mean that he has to accept someone's claim to a vision. It just means that if he is going to publicly critique it, he has to use accurate language. For example, he could have called it: "Sexually Explicit "Visions"" and have then explained what he thought was wrong with it. But instead he choose the most inflammatory language he could, implying spiritualism and sexual immorality (since I believe pornography to be a form of sexual immorality). That's just irresponsible.

You (Susan) wrote: "when disagreement occurs, understanding is better reached by discussion of the issues and taking the time to seriously considering each other's POV." This I agree with completely. Did you know that when Johnson first started to publicly and viciously attack that other pastor, the other pastor recorded a brotherly appeal for peace, explaining his ministry style, sent it to Johnson with hopes it would be shown to the entire "Shepherd's Conference"? (It wasn't.) The stated purpose of the video letter was to "live at peace with all men", to help Johnson and his friends understand his point of view. I know of no such attempts by Johnson to live at peace. And I think understanding that puts the video at the top into a different light.

Greg Long's picture

JCarpenter wrote:
You (Susan) wrote: "when disagreement occurs, understanding is better reached by discussion of the issues and taking the time to seriously considering each other's POV." This I agree with completely. Did you know that when Johnson first started to publicly and viciously attack that other pastor, the other pastor recorded a brotherly appeal for peace, explaining his ministry style, sent it to Johnson with hopes it would be shown to the entire "Shepherd's Conference"? (It wasn't.) The stated purpose of the video letter was to "live at peace with all men", to help Johnson and his friends understand his point of view. I know of no such attempts by Johnson to live at peace. And I think understanding that puts the video at the top into a different light.
JCarpenter, let me enlighten you about several such attempts by Johnson to reach out to Driscoll and why Driscoll's video wasn't shown to the Shepherds' Conference.

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2009/03/preachin-dirty.html

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

JCarpenter's picture

Thanks for that Greg. It certainly shows a lot about Johnson that is part of why he is so problematic. In that post he admits that he came to a conclusion about his victim first, wrote him a six page letter (likely an indictment), got a reply via video (which is irenic) and rejected it because his victim had the audacity not to submit to his interrogation but make his own points. And we're just supposed to accept Johnson's verdict even though we've seen he has a penchant for over-heated and even inaccurate terminology. Even just reading Johnson's account, which maybe self-serving, it doesn't sound like he's made any attempt to "live at peace" or understand his victim's "POV"; it sounds only as if he's proceeded like a prosecutor. Has it ever occurred to Johnson that he's not he grand inquisitor?

Mike Durning's picture

Larry wrote:
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.

I've tried and I've tried, but I just can't stop myself from wondering...

What if Mark Driscoll had gone to BJU?
CNN Headline: BJU expels student 9 days before graduation for his visions. Smile

Sorry. Returning to non-giggle mode now.

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Quote:
As for Susan, Alex above noted that some of the folks here are incorrigible (unteachable) and that not only am I right about Johnson but that my examples are mild. An example of a disingenuous redefinition of a term in order to support Johnson is your attempt to redefine "scripted" to simply mean a meeting and topic was arranged. That's not what Johnson meant. And I think you really know that but instead of being willing to call one of your "side" to account, you do verbal gymnastics to defend him.

These accusations are ludicrous, and I don't have a 'side'. I am not in any way associated with Phil Johnson. I have been involved in and taught speech and debate for years, and there are many words with a variety of meanings and permutations. If you don't want to acknowledge that, be my guest, but accusing me of being dishonest and ignoring the truth to defend someone I don't even know or an agenda of which I am unaware is patently absurd. I think Alex would agree, since h'es our new standard of veracity, that I am not in the least unteachable or incorrigible, and disagreeing with you doesn't make me so.

JCarpenter's picture

Mike's little joke got me thinking, with the topic of fundamentalist "discernment" ministries: How come so rarely do they denounce the sin of racism. BJU had a racist dating policy. Was that ever denounced by fundamentalist discernment ministries? With look out for compromise and rank sin, what about the overt sin of racism that seemed to thrive in many of the same areas as did fundamentalism?

JCarpenter's picture

Susan, saying that calling an event "scripted" only meant that it was arranged, is simply not serious. Words are not infinitely flexible. And that you refuse to admit that, suggest incorrigibility.

BryanBice's picture

JCarpenter wrote:
Susan, saying that calling an event "scripted" only meant that it was arranged, is simply not serious. Words are not infinitely flexible. And that you refuse to admit that, suggest incorrigibility.

For some reason, the old adage about the pot calling the kettle black comes to mind......

Pages

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