2012 StandPoint Conference Session 1: A Bridge Too Far

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.

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

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).

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-s…

(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.’ “

Millet’s quote of “use this as an opportunity” is in reference to Romney’s presidential campaign.

[Shaynus] 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… :D

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

[Larry] 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.

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.

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.

Thanks, JCarpenter for the response.

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.

We don’t get to make vague charges against people and claim we have a right to be inflammatory or to exaggerate.

I agree.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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.