2012 StandPoint Conference Session 1: A Bridge Too Far

[JCarpenter] 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?

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.

[JCarpenter] 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”?

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…

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)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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”?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

[JCarpenter] 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.

[JCarpenter] 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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.