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

[JCarpenter] 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).

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.

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] 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:

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:

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.

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.

“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] 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?

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.

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.

[JCarpenter] 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:

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:

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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.

[Aaron Blumer] 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.

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:

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.

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.