2012 StandPoint Conference Session 1: A Bridge Too Far

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.

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.

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.

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?

—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.

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.

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.

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?

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! :)

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

[JCarpenter] 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.”