2012 StandPoint Conference Session 1: A Bridge Too Far

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.

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.

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.

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 … :~

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?

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…

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.

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.

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.

[JCarpenter] 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

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?

[Larry] 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. :)

Sorry. Returning to non-giggle mode now.

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.

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?

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.

[JCarpenter] 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……