Team Pyro on Driscoll: "Why does Driscoll have such a fixation with obscene subject matter, ribald stories, and racy talk?"

6022 reads

There are 55 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

JCarpenter wrote:
I'm really not interested in defending Johnson's victim. However, it's obviously false to say (as someone above does) that Johnson "didn't "accuse" Driscoll of anything". He headlined the entire discussion "pornographic divination" which is a startling, inflammatory accusation. Here we have the issue of Johnson's selection of terms. I think I’ve dealt with the misuse of the “divination” accusation sufficiently at the other thread and the lack of substantiation of the “scripted” accusation (he made about the Elephant Room) should now be self-evident.

As for “pornographic”, that is defined by the dictionary of Johnson’s choice as “in a manner intended to stimulate erotic . . . feelings". I don’t believe anyone could seriously make the case that Driscoll was speaking “in a manner intended to stimulate erotic . . . feelings" (i.e. lust), even if we did believe it was foolish or even demonic. We can make a case against Driscoll's account without having to resort to Johnson's rhetoric and tactics.

Further, “pornographic” cannot be confused with “sexually explicit.” The Bible is “sexually explicit” in a few points, such as Genesis 38:9, “But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother.” (Did we really need to know the "nitty-gritty" of how he took practiced birth control? Apparently we did.) We have to ask ourselves, if we were there when Moses first delivered the book of Genesis, by Johnson’s standards, would we have accused him of being “pornographic”?

Personally I would not have used the term "pornographic" and I won't defend Johnson's use of it. However, there is a difference between sexually explicit and sensually explicit. But let's not get distracted by irrelevant semantic nuances. If we say Johnson has accurately characterized Driscoll's ministry as including "clearly inappropriate graphic descriptions of sexual activity," does that make you happy?

As for "Johnson didn't accuse Driscoll of anything" I don't know who's saying that... but I have no problem with saying that he (a) accused and (b) he was correct in spirit if not always in the exact word choices (though I don't really have a beef with that either).

JCarpenter's picture

When making accusations, accuracy is essential. To call an inaccurate term -- especially an exaggerated, inflammatory one -- used in an accusation "splitting hairs" is incorrect. A wise person who wants to avoid being accused by the Lord of bearing false witness, would rather understate than over-state an accusation.

Jay's picture

is that it's bad...just kidding.

I think - based on some other feedback I've seen - the hangup with using the term pornographic is that Driscoll isn't (thankfully!) being any more explicit in his description of what he actually saw. We know he 'saw' details - he describes the actions and even the color of the bedspread, but he didn't get into describing the act of sex itself. Of course, since these visions are in Mark's head (which is a whole other reason to be concerned with this issue), we don't know if the TV in his head has strategically placed black boxes so he doesn't see that part or not...all we have is Driscoll's words and not what he claims to be able to see. So we can't actually, technically, say that he saw 'pornography'.

In short, they're using this definition:

Bing Dictionary wrote:
pornography
Definition
por·nog·ra·phy [pawr nóggrəfee ]
NOUN
1. sexually explicit material: films, magazines, writings, photographs, or other materials that are sexually explicit and intended to cause sexual arousal

2. sexual images industry: the production or sale of sexually explicit films, magazines, or other materials [Mid-19th century. Via French < Greek pornographos "writing about prostitutes" < pornē "prostitute" ]

por·nog·ra·pher NOUN

I would strongly disagree with that position, and think that Driscoll's defenders are trying to thread the needle of what is and is not pornography. Yes, his description is not intended "to cause arousal" or "is not for sale", but there is no doubt that it's sexually explicit and a sexual image.

Furthermore - Mark doesn't have any right to describe these visions, especially in a preaching setting, because he's in clear violation of some other Biblical passages:

Quote:
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. - Eph. 4:29

Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children. And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. - Eph. 5:1-4

But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. - Col. 3:8

I do not see any way - any way at all - that giving these kinds of descriptions and information to an audience that contains men could possibly be helpful to any of them. Even at best, if his motives are pure, he's still setting up temptations and traps for the men in his audience, and I'm betting that many of the men in his church (and even some who may be reading this site!) have struggled with pornography. Driscoll does them no favors by teaching on that. The place for that is in private instruction and counseling.

The fact that this keeps coming up over and over and over and over again makes me wonder what is actually going on in his soul - has he really 'won' over his past sexual history? Or is it still ongoing and that's why it keeps popping into his articles, books and messages?

In any case, there is a great quote from http://www.dennyburk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/8-Lambert.pdf ]one review of Real Marriage, and I'll close with that here:

"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

DavidO's picture

So I read your argument above and thinking back on what Driscoll said (rather than rereading), I agree that a couple of the details that he threw in (which ones I will not belabor for all our sakes) do indeed qualify it as explicit. I think that's a significant point.

Other semantics notwithstanding.

JCarpenter's picture

I've been very disappointed in the lack of concern for integrity shown by some contributors here. For Christians, truth telling should be a major concern. It is so important to the Lord that one of the ten commandments has to do with prohibiting bearing false witness and at the end, in Revelation, we're told that everyone who "loves and practices deceit" is cast into hell. Yet over and over I've seen concerns about Johnson's inaccuracies pooh-poohed, called "hair-splitting", ignored, etc. That's doesn't show the priorities of the Lord and is disappointing coming from Christian leaders.

Aaron Blumer's picture

"Lack of concern for integrity." No, if "accuracy in accusations" is what you're aiming for, you should use the proper term: "People disagreeing with me."

What you're doing is dodging argument by dismissing the views of those who disagree. The method of dismissal is mischaracterize it as some kind of deceit (Interesting POV: "not my view"="deceit").
Anyway, I note that you didn't answer this question:

Aaron wrote:
If we say Johnson has accurately characterized Driscoll's ministry as including "clearly inappropriate graphic descriptions of sexual activity," does that make you happy?

If Phil had used "clearly inappropriate graphic descriptions of sexual activity" instead of "pornography" would you be here saying "OK, that's fine because he didn't say 'pornography'"?
Seems unlikely.
The point is that you don't agree with Phil's assessment, but rather than making a case that he's wrong, you try to make a case that he should have used different words?

Let's grant for the sake of argument that he should have used some other word... and let's suppose Phil himself says "I should have used some other word for the rotten smutty stuff I called 'pornography,'" what then?

JCarpenter's picture

Some here don't seem to grasp the significance of accusing someone of doing something "pornographic" or of participating in "divination". These aren't just fine semantic differences. Was Moses being "pornographic" by writing the sentence from Genesis 38 above? No. Would Johnson have accused him of such using the same criteria he applies to Driscoll. Likely. For divination, participating in that draws the death penalty in the OT law and falsely accusing someone of a death penalty crime also draws the death penalty. God took bearing false witness so seriously, that he called for the execution of someone who falsely accused people of divination, among other things. Accuracy is serious to the Lord.

Aaron Blumer's picture

Quote:
Some here don't seem to grasp the significance of accusing someone of doing something "pornographic" or of participating in "divination".

You're still ignoring my earlier question. But I'll ask another.
Is "clearly inappropriate graphic descriptions of sexual activity" less serious than "pornographic"?
And would "seeking revelation from God in vision form" be less serious than "divination"?
(but I think Phil's intent was probably that this revelation is not from God... in which case it's even more improbable that the term is less serious than "divination")

I don't see the "clearly inappropriate blah blah" and the "seeking revelation blah blah" as any less serious than the more compact terms. If one is not less serious than the other and the differences are micro-thin nuances, it's hard to see why it matters.

Jay's picture

JCarpenter wrote:
Some here don't seem to grasp the significance of accusing someone of doing something "pornographic" or of participating in "divination". These aren't just fine semantic differences. Was Moses being "pornographic" by writing the sentence from Genesis 38 above? No. Would Johnson have accused him of such using the same criteria he applies to Driscoll. Likely. For divination, participating in that draws the death penalty in the OT law and falsely accusing someone of a death penalty crime also draws the death penalty. God took bearing false witness so seriously, that he called for the execution of someone who falsely accused people of divination, among other things. Accuracy is serious to the Lord.

I'm presuming you're referring to v. 8-9:

Quote:
8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother's wife and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.” 9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother.

I'd say Moses handled it a little differently from Driscoll:

Quote:
I said, "You know I think the root of all this—I think Satan has a foothold in your life because you've never told your husband about that really tall blonde guy that you met at the bar. And then you went back to the hotel. And you laid on your back. And you undressed yourself. And he climbed on top of you. And you had sex with him. And snuggled up with him for a while. And deep down in your heart, even though you had just met him, you desired him because secretly he is the fantasy body type." I said, "You remember that place it was that cheap hotel with that certain-colored bedspread. You did it—you had sex with the light on because you weren't ashamed and you wanted him to see you. And you wanted to see him.

But I could be mistaken.

"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 Aaron,
You asked, "Is "clearly inappropriate graphic descriptions of sexual activity" less serious than "pornographic"?"
Actually I answered this earlier on the other thread. I proposed that Johnson could have said "sexually explicit" without being inaccurate. As above, that's not equivalent to "pornographic". Whether it is "clearly inappropriate" is a matter of judgment, but, again, it doesn't fit the definition of "pornogrpahic."
What you don't seem to be grasping is that if we accuse someone of being "pornographic", they have to be "pornographic", not just sexually explicit or "clearly inappropriate." Words matter. They matter so much that if you use the wrong one, you've violated one of the 10 commandments.

Also, you said, "And would "seeking revelation from God in vision form" be less serious than "divination"?" Definitely. And I'm flabbergasted that you don't see the difference. If you're a cessationist you'd say that seeking a revelation from God will not be answered. If you aren't, then it's possible it could be. But, as before, "divination" is not being used in any morally neutral way (seeking from God) but suggests spiritualism, some form of witchcraft. No Christian I know of uses the term "divination" to mean "seeking revelation from God in vision form". They mean it to refer to seeking revelation through supernatural means other than from God (which I believe to be only demonic)

Hi Jay, it appears to me that Genesis 38 is more explicit than is Driscoll as Genesis 38 actually described what happened at the point of intercourse. This is text that if it were not in the Bible already (like a passage in Ezekiel about male genitalia and passages of the Song of Solomon) would be considered "pornographic" by the standards Johnson uses.

DavidO's picture

Quote:
Is "clearly inappropriate graphic descriptions of sexual activity" less serious than "pornographic"?

I don't think it's a matter of seriousness. To me its a matter of the inflamatory nature of the word that works to prejudice the reader.

I don't think that was Johnson's intent. But he is, after all, Mr. Due Process, and I think avoiding inflammatory words for a more technical accuracy really works in his favor all the way around.

If he uses Aaron's wording, we don't waste a dozen posts discussing the justifiability of the other word.

Or have to read Driscoll's quote yet again.

Aaron Blumer's picture

"Sexually explicit" would be too morally and ethically neutral. Johnson used the term he did because he meant to communicate that Driscoll's communication was/is improper.
So a debate worth having would not be on the question of is "pornographic" the right word but rather on where the boundaries of propriety belong.
Of course, assuming that Driscoll is not over the line and dismissing all views to the contrary is not having a debate.
But it's not a debate I'm personally interested in having. The impropriety is as obvious to me as the non-impropriety apparently is to you.

Quote:
Also, you said, "And would "seeking revelation from God in vision form" be less serious than "divination"?" Definitely. And I'm flabbergasted that you don't see the difference. If you're a cessationist you'd say that seeking a revelation from God will not be answered.

I don't believe it's proper to seek revelation from God beyond what He has given us in His word. Cessationism would indeed mean that God is not dispensing divine revelation and that the "revelation" that comes is either imaginary or diabolical. It is not obvious to me that this is better than "divination." (It's not even obvious to me that this is not divination).

We're going in circles, as I anticipated, so I think I'll be moving on to other things now. I continue to believe that though Phil could certainly be mistaken on one point or another, he has not acted improperly in making the evaluations he has and supporting them the way he has supported them.

DavidO's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:
The impropriety is as obvious to me as the non-impropriety apparently is to you.

This is simply not an accurate reading of the totality of what I have written above. And plays into the notion of the false dichotomy in play here, namely, "either you think its pornography or you don't have a problem with it."

I explicitly stated I do have a problem with it, I just have more than those two categories.

Jay's picture

David, I think Aaron is referring to Mr. Carpenter, not you. At least, the quoted section of his post is from JCarpenter.

@JCarpenter - let me play Devil's advocate here. If I decided to agree with you that Phil is wrong and he shouldn't have used the terms "pornographic divination", would you have a problem with what Driscoll said?

What if Driscoll had just said:

Quote:
I'm not a guru. I'm not a freak. I don't talk about this. If I did talk about it everybody'd want to meet with me and I'd end up like one of those guys on TV. But some of you have this visual ability to see things.

Um, uh, there was one women I dealt with. She never told her husband that she had committed adultery on him early in the relationship. I said, "You know—" (she's sitting there with her husband). I said, "You know I think the root of all this—I think Satan has a foothold in your life because you've never told your husband about that really tall blonde guy that you met at the bar, and you had sex with him, and you've never confessed that to the Lord, to him, or sought the help you needed to work through your own guilt."

Would we even be talking about this? I'd say we would, because Driscoll is claiming that the Holy Spirit is putting a "TV in his head" of rapes and abuse and criminal actions, and that the Spirit does this even when Mark is getting up to preach.

"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 Aaron, I'm kind of flummoxed that you seem to be understanding that it is wrong to make a false accusation. It should not be difficult to understand. Johnson boldly charged Driscoll with "pornographic divination." If that's false, it is a seriously wrong thing to do to make a false accusation. Pornographic is not accurate. To use it is to make a false accusation. Ditto with divination. Since these are the terms Johnson used, the debate is whether they are valid. They are not.

There just is no scripture supporting that kind of radical cessationism, saying that it is wrong to seek revelation from God outside of scripture. Your position is therefore ironic in that you claim to believe in the sufficiency of scripture but have a position that you can't support with scripture.

There are, it seems to me three possible positions here:

1.Someone could agree with Johnson, despite the fact that Johnson's own choice of dictionaries doesn't support the "pornographic" charge and there is not evidence that Driscoll was involved in spiritualism (the meaning of divination.)
2. Some one could both disapprove of Driscoll's comments because they considered them "inappropriate" and of Johnson's characterization of them as pornographic and divination.
3. Someone could approve of Driscoll's comments (or view the moral appraisal of them as none of their business) but disapprove of Johnson't characterization.

To me, #1 is totally untenable and invalid.
# 2 I understand and respect. This seems to be David's position and I think it is reasonable and fair. I tend to think the appraisal of Driscoll being "inappropriate" is culturally (not Biblically based) and I think the same people who say so would have called Moses, Solomon, and Ezekiel "inappropriate" if their words were not already in the Bible.
Since Driscoll doesn't teach any false doctrines here or advocate allegiance to another god, then I don't see that I have to come to any conclusion as to the truthfulness of his claimed visions. It doesn't necessarily fail the Deuteronomy test but I don't necessarily believe it either. I just don't know, such as Jonathan Edwards said about physical manifestations during the Great Awakening: they neither prove nor disprove anything. But Johnson's "pornographic divination" charge is clearly false and so that is the problem, not Driscoll.

DavidO's picture

Jay wrote:
David, I think Aaron is referring to Mr. Carpenter, not you.

Ah, my mistake then.

Jay's picture

JCarpenter wrote:
There just is no scripture supporting that kind of radical cessationism, saying that it is wrong to seek revelation from God outside of scripture. Your position is therefore ironic in that you claim to believe in the sufficiency of scripture but have a position that you can't support with scripture.

Are you saying that Christians can and should seek guidance from outside of Scripture? Basically, you're claiming that you believe in ongoing revelation?

Quote:
There are, it seems to me three possible positions here:

1.Someone could agree with Johnson, despite the fact that Johnson's own choice of dictionaries doesn't support the "pornographic" charge and there is not evidence that Driscoll was involved in spiritualism (the meaning of divination.)
2. Some one could both disapprove of Driscoll's comments because they considered them "inappropriate" and of Johnson's characterization of them as pornographic and divination.
3. Someone could approve of Driscoll's comments (or view the moral appraisal of them as none of their business) but disapprove of Johnson't characterization.

To me, #1 is totally untenable and invalid. # 2 I understand and respect. This seems to be David's position and I think it is reasonable and fair. I tend to think the appraisal of Driscoll being "inappropriate" is culturally (not Biblically based) and I think the same people who say so would have called Moses, Solomon, and Ezekiel "inappropriate" if their words were not already in the Bible.

So you're at #3, then? I'm curious since you discount #1 and 'understand and respect' #2, but you haven't said what you personally think.

Quote:
Since Driscoll doesn't teach any false doctrines here or advocate allegiance to another god, then I don't see that I have to come to any conclusion as to the truthfulness of his claimed visions.

Full stop. Driscoll is claiming that the Holy Spirit gives him personal, visual, and sexually explicit revelation into the lives of people, and that He even does so just as Driscoll is getting up to preach. And that's NOT false doctrine? Yikes.

If I 'found' a new book of the Bible and wanted to add it onto the canon, would you have an objection to that?

"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

Joel Shaffer's picture

Quote:
If I 'found' a new book of the Bible and wanted to add it onto the canon, would you have an objection to that?

Jay,

Most (if not all) conservative evangelicals who are non-cessationists believe that revelation such as words of knowledge, prophesy, and etc.... must be under the authority of the Bible. If a person says something through these types of revelation that contradicts what the Bible says, than it is considered false. Many of these churches will even confront the person for making a false statement that goes against what the Bible says. The canon is closed for them. Even my more insistent charismatic/tongue-speaking brothers in Christ believe that the canon is closed.

JCarpenter's picture

Hi Jay,

First, I affirm what Mr. Joel Shaffer said completely.

Second, because I believe in the sufficiency of scripture, for me to say that something is "wrong" or "false doctrine", I need a scripture to prove that. Just because it makes me uncomfortable or is not my style, etc., doesn't give me the right to condemn something. Driscoll preaching in a Mickey Mouse shirt is not my style. I don't like it, at least not for me. But I don't have the right to condemn it because there is no scripture saying so. Just so with the claim to a vision. Now, if in his claimed vision he said we are to do something unBiblical, like commit immorality or follow Buddha or if he clearly predicted something (like the rapture is going to be at a certain time), and it didn't come true, then we could pronounce him a false teacher. That's the Deuteronomy test.

I wouldn't accept a claim to a new book in the Bible because we have the Bible from the Lord Jesus. He affirmed the entire OT and He gave us the Apostles ("sent ones") to give us the NT.

As above, the irony of cessationism is that it claims to be defending the sufficiency of scripture but it is itself not found in scripture. So they are supplementing scripture in order to say that scripture doesn't need supplementing. As for "continuing revelation", scripture tells us that God reveals Himself through nature all the time (Romans 1), "the heavens declare the glory of God, . . . day after day they pour forth speech" (Psalm 19). A pastor in a counselling session may ask questions or use reason to seek additional information to help someone; since all truth is God's truth, all truth is "revelation." But scripture is the authoritative rule. It's the special revelation that is perfect, inerrant.

So, in this case, Driscoll hasn't taught anything that is clearly condemned in scripture. But, in my opinion, Johnson has violated scripture: he broke the 9th commandment against bearing false witness. Indeed, he accused Driscoll of doing something ("divination") that would have brought the death penalty under the Law in Israel. The penalty for falsely accusing someone of a capitol crime is receiving the same penalty: death. What Johnson did is very serious Biblically.

Jay's picture

What what Joel is saying is that non-cessationalists have no problem with claims that God reveals things visually to those who receive "His" visions - no matter how bizarre or sinful they may be. I can understand that, but disagree with it.

JCarpenter, on the other hand, thinks that "Driscoll hasn't taught anything that's clearly condemned in Scripture", but hasn't yet interacted with any of the Scripture that I quoted in http://sharperiron.org/comment/43430#comment-43430 ]post #33 . He does, however, have a real problem with Phil Johnson, who documents what Driscoll does with Driscoll's own words.

Okay, then...well, I guess that settles that conversation.

I would be jesting, but this is not funny, and it speaks volumes about the absolute lack of doctrinal soundness in some people of our 'kind'. I'm pretty sure that two of the verses I cited in post #33 - Ephesians 5:1-4 and Colossians 3:8 - govern this situation in regards to 'visions that come from God', especially when they're given to reveal acts of sin and crime. I'm also pretty sure that any claims of persistent revelation 'from God' fly in the face of Scriptures that say that those who 'prophesy' must be tested to see if they're in alignment with Scripture, which is the final authority for all things. I'm kinda - but not really sure - that when someone claims that God gave them a vision of sordid and explicit sexual detail, that http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+4%3A1-6&version=ESV ]that is not of God . I'm also kind of thinking that there are a LOT of people who are going to say that they served Jesus faithfully, but will be surprised at http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7:21-23&version=ESV ]the reception they get from Him .

But hey, if you want to govern your spiritual life by a guy instead of the Bible, by all means, go right ahead. Just don't come crying to me when http://esv.scripturetext.com/matthew/7-24.htm your house collapses on the sand .

"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

DavidO's picture

In fairness to Johnson, from the best of my recollection (and I don't care to go back and read the article or quotes again), Phil explicitly charactarized the visions as pornographic. However he referred to the speech as smut or smutty (can't recall), the definition of which has significant overlap with pronograp(y/ic), perhaps to the point of synonomy. More semantics, I know.

But, as a "writer", this is an issue of concern to me.

Greg Long's picture

And off we go down another rabbit trail...

JCarpenter, I have two questions for you:

1. Where in Scripture does it say that the canon would be closed with the book of Revelation?
2. Do you believe there are Apostles of Jesus Christ today with full apostolic authority?

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

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Jay's picture

As an aside - this is what Phil http://www.teampyro.org/2011/08/pornographic-divination.html actually says about the video:

Quote:
The video below features Mark Driscoll, claiming the Holy Spirit regularly gives him graphic visions showing acts of rape, fornicators in flagrante delicto, and sexual child molesters in the very act. WARNING: This is an extremely disturbing video, for multiple reasons:

* This is bad teaching. The biblical "Gift of discernment" has nothing to do with soothsaying and everything to do with maturity, clear understanding, the ability to make wise and careful distinctions, and (especially) skill in differentiating between holy and profane, clean and unclean, truth and falsehood (Ezekiel 44:23; Hebrews 5:14).

* The counsel Driscoll gives is bad counsel. If by his own admission Driscoll's divinations are not "a hundred percent always right," he has no business accusing people of serious sins—including felony crimes—based on what he "sees" in his own imagination. Much less should he encourage his congregants to dream that they have such an ability and urge them to "use that gift."

* The salacious details he recounts are totally unnecessary. They serve only to reinforce the concern some of us have raised: Why does Driscoll have such a fixation with obscene subject matter, ribald stories, and racy talk? The smutty particulars regarding a counselee's tryst in a cheap hotel are not merely unnecessary; "it is disgraceful even to speak of [such ] things" (Ephesians 5:12).

* For that same reason (among others), these yarns aren't even believable. The Holy Spirit's own eyes are too pure to behold evil, and He cannot look on wickedness (Habakkuk 1:13). So why would He display pornographic visions to Mark Driscoll, whose mind and mouth are already too lewd anyway?

* This proves that cessationists' concerns are not far-fetched. Reformed charismatics frequently complain that it's unfair for cessationists not to expressly exempt them when we criticize the eccentricities of the wacko fringe [fringe is struck through in the original post -JC ] mainstream of the larger charismatic movement. But Reformed charismatics themselves aren't careful to distance themselves from charismatic nuttiness. John Piper was openly intrigued with the Toronto Blessing when it was at its peak. (If he ever denounced it as a fraud, I never heard or read where he stated that fact publicly.) Wayne Grudem to this day endorses Jack Deere's Surprised by the Power of the Spirit, despite the way Deere lionizes Paul Cain. Sam Storms aligned himself with the Kansas City Prophets' cult for almost a decade. I can't imagine how anyone holding Grudem's view of modern prophecy could possibly repudiate what Driscoll insists he has experienced. Does anyone really expect a thoughtful analysis or critique of Driscoll's view of the "gift of discernment" (much less a collective repudiation of this kind of pornographic divination) from Reformed charismatics? I certainly don't.

* Thus we see that the leaky-canon view leaves the church exposed—not only to the whimsy of hyperactive imaginations, but (as we see here) to the defiling influence of an impure mind as well (begins Driscoll quote).

But of course the problem is with Phil (and those who agree with him, like myself), not Driscoll.

"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

Greg Long's picture

Here's another question for you:

Today I listened to Driscoll's sermon on Jesus' letter to the church in Ephesus. In it he said, "Cessastionism...essentially says that the Holy Spirit does not operate today like he once did. It's a clever way of saying, 'We don't need Him like we used to.'"

That is an absolutely false characterization of Cessastionism. I've known many cessationists and sat under the preaching and teaching of cessationists all of my life, and I've never heard a single one of them say we don't need Him today like we used to.

My question is, Is Driscoll breaking the ninth Commandment by bearing false witness? Is he now unfit for pastoral ministry?

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

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

wkessel1's picture

I was just wondering if there are any Biblical examples of the kind of "visions" that Mark Driscoll claims to have? Ones with the detail of a sin to confront someone with that sin. For example, the Bible doesn't say anything about Nathan getting a vision of David and Bathseba before confronting David about it.

By Mark's own word's the visions are not right 100% of the time, how does he know which ones are right? Also if these "visions" are from the Holy Spirit does that then mean the Holy Spirit is not right 100% of the time? I can see the conversation now, "the Holy Spirit gave me a tv show in my mind about what you did (with all this detail), opps I guess he was wrong". Any Biblical pattern of the Holy Spirity being wrong on "vision"? i don't think so. So I am not sure how Mark can claim to get "visions" from the Holy Spirit if some are wrong.

If Mark is getting "visions" to confront peoples sins which sometime involces crimes, does that mean we should be reconsidering if the psychic can really help police? Would it then be reasonable to consider that those vision could be from the Holy Spirit as well and given to help bring someone to justice? I don't think beleve the "psychic" people are getting vissions from the Holy Spirit any more than I believe Mark is. But they do sound very similar.

In my mind, these points as well as many of those posted above settle the matter for me.

Pages