Douglas Wilson Defends Driscoll Invite & "Revelation"

“I have been part of too many (non-revelatory and yet sufficiently spooky) circumstances to say otherwise — I am speaking of remarkable guidances, provisions, answers to prayer, striking bits of random knowledge, etc. I would like to see us work out the protocols for how to talk about such things, and think it would be good if Phil and Mark could get together to work it through. I would come too, but my presence there would be less disruptive if I just attended in my dream…”

Phil Johnson responds at Pyromaniacs:

What precipitated Doug’s post yesterday is that in a few weeks Driscoll will be one of the speakers at a conference sponsored by Wilson’s church. Toby Sumpter writes, “Hopefully through this conference in particular a few bridges can be built between Seattle and Moscow, between Driscoll and Wilson, between us Presbyterians and the more groovy parts of the body of Christ. Hopefully we can learn from Driscoll, and hopefully, like good friends, we might have something to offer him.”

Hopefully, that’s diplomatic language suggesting that Wilson and other CREC leaders plan to raise these issues in face-to-face talks with Driscoll and (hopefully) they will try more earnestly to change his mind on the cessationism question—or at the very least persuade him to repent of these luridly sensational, highly doubtful, and spiritually dangerous claims.

See the previous filing - Team Pyro on Driscoll: “Why does Driscoll have such a fixation with obscene subject matter, ribald stories, and racy talk?”

3167 reads

There are 15 Comments

Shaynus's picture

I really enjoy Doug Wilson's writing style.

http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=885...

Here's a gem.

"The other thing I would like to see tamped down in this discussion is the free use of words like "wickedness," or "blasphemous," or "pornographic." There are ways to take issue with something that you believe is not wise without categorizing it as though you are battling with the orcs at Helm's Deep. I certainly would differ with some of Mark's take on this sort of thing, just as I would with John MacArthur's recent and unwise blast against beer. Let's not man the barricades just yet."

Charlie's picture

Shaynus wrote:
There are ways to take issue with something that you believe is not wise without categorizing it as though you are battling with the orcs at Helm's Deep.

Actually, I believe http://paulhelmsdeep.blogspot.com/ Helm's Deep is one of the very best web sites on the internet. If Paul Helm battled orcs, I'd follow it. Wink

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

JohnBrian's picture

Wilson wrote:
just as I would with John MacArthur's recent and unwise blast against beer.

MacArthur's blast was not against beer!

CanJAmerican - my blog
CanJAmerican - my twitter
whitejumaycan - my youtube

Shaynus's picture

Where is he defending Mark Driscoll?? All he's asking for is proportionality and getting down to the real questions without throwing firey rhetoric.

Don P's picture

Paul J. Scharf wrote:
There is no defense for Mark Driscoll's pulpit antics. He is truly a child of his times. Very scary. I'm disappointed in Wilson.

Actually, Driscoll would fit in well with much of fundamentalism, especially the Hyles-Anderson type.

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

when only a few people directly involved know enough details to make a judgment and take action. Driscoll's message is not one of those. There is no ambiguity. There is no "He said, she said". It's in living color for anyone with the stomach to watch it. If the threshold of evidence has not been met, exactly what kind of and how much evidence does one need?

By all means invite Drsicoll to the conference and deal with him face to face. He needs to be challenged on his fitness for the ministry, and receive counseling. But putting him on the podium for anything other than repudiation and repentance is, in this generation's vernacular, an epic fail.

Susan R's picture

EditorModerator

Shaynus wrote:
http://www.dougwils.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=885...

Here's a gem.

"The other thing I would like to see tamped down in this discussion is the free use of words like "wickedness," or "blasphemous," or "pornographic." There are ways to take issue with something that you believe is not wise without categorizing it as though you are battling with the orcs at Helm's Deep. I certainly would differ with some of Mark's take on this sort of thing, just as I would with John MacArthur's recent and unwise blast against beer. Let's not man the barricades just yet."


In his call for folks not to mischaracterize Driscoll, he mischaracterizes both Mr. Johnson and John MacArthur.

Wilson would "differ with Mark's tone" and "take"? I agree that we don't need to "man the barricades", but Driscoll is a big stain on Christianity that needs some serious Clorox 2. He needs loving correction and counseling, and then he needs to repent or be removed from the pulpit. All the fingers that so rightly pointed at IFBism for not doing so in the past are suddenly pounding their keyboards in defense of the indefensible.

BTW, could people please give the book of Ezekiel a rest? It is not in any way, shape, or form, a proof text for Driscoll's methods and message.

Lee's picture

Don P wrote:
Actually, Driscoll would fit in well with much of fundamentalism, especially the Hyles-Anderson type.

Not sure that meets the reality test. Just sayin'......

Lee

Mike Durning's picture

Lee wrote:
Don P wrote:
Actually, Driscoll would fit in well with much of fundamentalism, especially the Hyles-Anderson type.

Not sure that meets the reality test. Just sayin'......

Actually, as one who attended Hyles-Anderson way back when, I would have to agree. The objections people have to Driscoll could easily have been applied to Jack Hyles. The only difference is that Driscoll sticks closer to the text in MOST of his sermons.

Todd Wood's picture

I have registered for the conference and the pastor's pre-conference.

It has been a while since I have done any reporting on a conference for SI. Yet I know these two men are very controversial, so how about this . . . I will try to post a detailed account on my personal blog. Stay tuned.

It will be my first time to hear directly from Wilson or Driscoll. Are there any questions that you all would like me to ask either of them?

reporting from the heart of the intermountain West and beautiful Idaho,
Todd

Shaynus's picture

Don P wrote:
Paul J. Scharf wrote:
There is no defense for Mark Driscoll's pulpit antics. He is truly a child of his times. Very scary. I'm disappointed in Wilson.

Actually, Driscoll would fit in well with much of fundamentalism, especially the Hyles-Anderson type.

It's sure to illicit a response.

But seriously, I wish I could be there for it. Since it's about manhood, womanhood and sexuality, I'll think of another one.

Don P's picture

Lee wrote:
Don P wrote:
Actually, Driscoll would fit in well with much of fundamentalism, especially the Hyles-Anderson type.

Not sure that meets the reality test. Just sayin'......

I am laughing! Are you saying Hyles-Anderson type fundamentalists are out of touch with reality?

Lee's picture

Don P wrote:
Lee wrote:
Don P wrote:
Actually, Driscoll would fit in well with much of fundamentalism, especially the Hyles-Anderson type.

Not sure that meets the reality test. Just sayin'......

I am laughing! Are you saying Hyles-Anderson type fundamentalists are out of touch with reality?


Maybe the reality fail referenced "much of fundamentalism". The stereotypical H/A type (whatever that may look like) is hardly more than a pimple on the face of fundamentalism. Jack is dead, and the heyday of H/A is twenty years past. Let's move on; nothing more to see here.

Lee