Team Pyro on Driscoll: "Why does Driscoll have such a fixation with obscene subject matter, ribald stories, and racy talk?"
At least now we know why Mark is so obsessed with sex. The Lord’s been messing with his head.
Is it just me, or does he even sound like he’s lying about these “incidents”? Usually these “I am amazingly gifted” story-tellers are better at making it sound like it really happened.
Is it just me, or does he even sound like he’s lying about these “incidents”? Usually these “I am amazingly gifted” story-tellers are better at making it sound like it really happened.
I’m sorry, but Driscoll needs to step down from his church, and if his elders/deacons don’t see it, then I don’t know what to say.
Look at what he’s saying:
This stuff isn’t even close to orthodox…and how is any of it verifiable? What if Driscoll says that some woman was abused and the ‘abuser’ and the ‘victim’ say it’s not true, and Driscoll’s wrong? Then what?
Furthermore, Driscoll’s obsession with sex is really getting out of hand if he feels like he must describe incidents in his preaching. If I’d been at that service where he described the incident with the woman who cheated on her husband, I would have walked out and never come back.
At some point, you have to ask at what point the people in the church are going to get fed up with it.
Look at what he’s saying:
Upon occasion when I get up to preach I’ll see—just like a screen in front of me—I’ll see somebody get raped or abused and then I’ll track ‘em down and say, “Look I had this vision. Let me tell you about it.”…
She was walking by and I just saw it. It was like a TV. And I said, “Hey, come here for a second.” I said, “Last night did your husband throw you up against the wall and have you by the throat, physically assault you and tell you if you told anyone he would kill you?”
And she just starts bawling. She says, “How did you know?”
I said, “Jesus told me.”
This stuff isn’t even close to orthodox…and how is any of it verifiable? What if Driscoll says that some woman was abused and the ‘abuser’ and the ‘victim’ say it’s not true, and Driscoll’s wrong? Then what?
Furthermore, Driscoll’s obsession with sex is really getting out of hand if he feels like he must describe incidents in his preaching. If I’d been at that service where he described the incident with the woman who cheated on her husband, I would have walked out and never come back.
At some point, you have to ask at what point the people in the church are going to get fed up with it.
"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
Observe that the message quote is from 2008.
That’s 3 years ago.
That’s 3 years ago.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
[M. Osborne] Observe that the message quote is from 2008.
That’s 3 years ago.
Maybe that just means he’s been in his pulpit 3 years too long. :bigsmile:
Lee
seems to have its darlings. Take some advice from William Faulkner, and “Kill your darlings”. ;)
… http://marshill.com/about/what-we-believe] Mark Driscoll holds to the fundamentals, and could agree with the SI doctrinal statement. I think you could call him a “conservative evangelical”, couldn’t you? If he isn’t one, what is a CE? His doctrinal statement is right in line with “historic fundamentalism”, isn’t it? Some might claim he is more of a true heir of historic fundamentalism than separatist fundamentalists.
So what in the world is Phil Johnson saying?
Do you see what Phil is doing here? He is distancing himself from Driscoll, publicly criticizing another believer who preaches the Gospel and holds to the fundamentals. Phil (and John Mac) wouldn’t even invite Driscoll to preach, or accept an invitation from him! But Phil doesn’t even stop there. He’s actually criticizing others for not distancing themselves, for having Driscoll in to preach. Who does Phil think he is? Mark Driscoll is a servant of the Lord, preaching the Gospel!
I’m not going to pretend that Phil hasn’t said what he said. He actually gives the impression that the failure of some to distance themselves from Driscoll is going to have an impact on his view of their ministries. He might even be hesitant to join with them in some things because of this. You do all recognize what is being hinted at here? Phil Johnson sounds like what some people call a “second degree separationist”! :O
***
Hopefully my point is clear. Welcome back to the realities of separation. It is sometimes necessary to pull back from someone, even if he holds to the fundamentals.
Most comments on separation on this site tend to consist of one or more of the following:
1. Scorn for the principle of separation.
2. Scorn for those who hold or advocate the principle.
3. Downplaying the principle by turning the conversation to abuses of it.
Perhaps examples like Driscoll will help some of you move beyond that, and see that there is something to be said for “distancing” at times, even from those who hold to the great truths of the Gospel. If Biblical “separation” is limited to separation from apostasy, as some claim, then there is no Biblical grounds for “distancing” from Mark Driscoll. We might as well all join his church, listen to his sermons, and consider his “words of knowledge” or whatever they are.
But if Biblical separation goes beyond separation from apostasy, then we can chuck a lot of the specious arguments against separation into the trash, and start to focus on Biblical principles, and how to apply them.
Conservative evangelicalism has Driscoll’s kind of stuff (and other rubbish) all over the place. Don’t believe me? Just cross over to that world for a while, and look around. You’ll forgive me, hopefully, if I don’t take the journey with you.
Fundamentalism has, perhaps, just as many messes. The difference is that, in fundamentalism, at least the principle is accepted (or used to be accepted) that you distance yourself from the rubbish — exactly what Phil Johnson is saying here. That’s true even if the rubbish is being spread around by someone who accepts the great truths of the Gospel. You still distance yourself from it, and if others won’t, then you’ll need to create some level of distance from them to keep yourself away from the rubbish. You don’t need to treat the rubbish spreaders or their friends as enemies, but you keep away from the rubbish.
The Reformed charismatics won’t listen to Phil. Why should they? Conservative evangelicalism has no understanding or acceptance of the Biblical principles involved in distancing ourselves from the rubbish.
Phil said Reformed charismatics should “distance themselves.” Why? Once you answer that Biblically, and start to apply it “without fear or favour” as they say on this side of the Atlantic, you might find you need to do some other “distancing” yourself. You could make a very good separatist fundamentalist, Phil, if you will work through and apply a careful and charitable Biblical understanding of what you’ve said here.
May the Lord bless you all as you figure out what to do with the rubbish. I’ve spent enough time around it in the past to know what I need to do, no matter who is spreading it.
So what in the world is Phil Johnson saying?
But Reformed charismatics themselves aren’t careful to distance themselves from charismatic nuttiness.Phil has a lot of nerve, doesn’t he? Who does he think he is, telling people what they should do? Can’t we all just get Together 4 the Gospel? Mark preaches the Gospel, after all. HOW DARE PHIL CALL HIM NUTTY?!!!
Do you see what Phil is doing here? He is distancing himself from Driscoll, publicly criticizing another believer who preaches the Gospel and holds to the fundamentals. Phil (and John Mac) wouldn’t even invite Driscoll to preach, or accept an invitation from him! But Phil doesn’t even stop there. He’s actually criticizing others for not distancing themselves, for having Driscoll in to preach. Who does Phil think he is? Mark Driscoll is a servant of the Lord, preaching the Gospel!
I’m not going to pretend that Phil hasn’t said what he said. He actually gives the impression that the failure of some to distance themselves from Driscoll is going to have an impact on his view of their ministries. He might even be hesitant to join with them in some things because of this. You do all recognize what is being hinted at here? Phil Johnson sounds like what some people call a “second degree separationist”! :O
***
Hopefully my point is clear. Welcome back to the realities of separation. It is sometimes necessary to pull back from someone, even if he holds to the fundamentals.
Most comments on separation on this site tend to consist of one or more of the following:
1. Scorn for the principle of separation.
2. Scorn for those who hold or advocate the principle.
3. Downplaying the principle by turning the conversation to abuses of it.
Perhaps examples like Driscoll will help some of you move beyond that, and see that there is something to be said for “distancing” at times, even from those who hold to the great truths of the Gospel. If Biblical “separation” is limited to separation from apostasy, as some claim, then there is no Biblical grounds for “distancing” from Mark Driscoll. We might as well all join his church, listen to his sermons, and consider his “words of knowledge” or whatever they are.
But if Biblical separation goes beyond separation from apostasy, then we can chuck a lot of the specious arguments against separation into the trash, and start to focus on Biblical principles, and how to apply them.
Conservative evangelicalism has Driscoll’s kind of stuff (and other rubbish) all over the place. Don’t believe me? Just cross over to that world for a while, and look around. You’ll forgive me, hopefully, if I don’t take the journey with you.
Fundamentalism has, perhaps, just as many messes. The difference is that, in fundamentalism, at least the principle is accepted (or used to be accepted) that you distance yourself from the rubbish — exactly what Phil Johnson is saying here. That’s true even if the rubbish is being spread around by someone who accepts the great truths of the Gospel. You still distance yourself from it, and if others won’t, then you’ll need to create some level of distance from them to keep yourself away from the rubbish. You don’t need to treat the rubbish spreaders or their friends as enemies, but you keep away from the rubbish.
The Reformed charismatics won’t listen to Phil. Why should they? Conservative evangelicalism has no understanding or acceptance of the Biblical principles involved in distancing ourselves from the rubbish.
Phil said Reformed charismatics should “distance themselves.” Why? Once you answer that Biblically, and start to apply it “without fear or favour” as they say on this side of the Atlantic, you might find you need to do some other “distancing” yourself. You could make a very good separatist fundamentalist, Phil, if you will work through and apply a careful and charitable Biblical understanding of what you’ve said here.
May the Lord bless you all as you figure out what to do with the rubbish. I’ve spent enough time around it in the past to know what I need to do, no matter who is spreading it.
[M. Osborne] Observe that the message quote is from 2008.Even as a “soft” cesssationist myself (i.e., Open to God at work in analogous ways to the early Christian era in pioneer situations where the Word is not present), what Driscoll teaches wanders far from biblical truth. I’m just wondering why this came up now if the video is from 2008 or if Driscoll has since retracted his error. None of the Acts 29 guys I know practice or advocate this. Maybe soneone could come up with more recent videos on this subject. If Driscoll still holds to that then he is one scary dude in a Mickey Mouse shirt.
That’s 3 years ago.
Bro. Davis- this video is still up on http://marshill.com/media/spiritual-warfare/christus-victor] the Mars Hill website . Other messages, not as graphic, contain the same ideas.
[Steve Davis]Steve, they posted this video now to piggy-back off of a post regarding Driscoll’s recent assertion that “cessationism is worldliness.” I think this video, while three years old, provides some context regarding Driscoll that shows just how ridiculous his assertion is.[M. Osborne] Observe that the message quote is from 2008.Even as a “soft” cesssationist myself (i.e., Open to God at work in analogous ways to the early Christian era in pioneer situations where the Word is not present), what Driscoll teaches wanders far from biblical truth. I’m just wondering why this came up now if the video is from 2008 or if Driscoll has since retracted his error. None of the Acts 29 guys I know practice or advocate this. Maybe soneone could come up with more recent videos on this subject. If Driscoll still holds to that then he is one scary dude in a Mickey Mouse shirt.
That’s 3 years ago.
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
I appreciate the clarifications from Susan and Greg. When people start speaking about what Jesus told them yesterday we need to listen to what we know He said.
[M. Osborne] Observe that the message quote is from 2008.
That’s 3 years ago.
True, the video is three years old. However, the post on TeamPyro was made yesterday, which is why we ran it.
If Driscoll has come out and disavowed this kind of behavior, we’ll be happy to link to that as well.
"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
He reported all this abuse of women and children to the proper authorities, right?
Maybe he could even get a TV show out of it.
http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID11363/images/psych.jpg
http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID11363/images/psych.jpg
So let’s separate. Why don’t the moderate, sane fundamentalists of the NIU/MBBC/BJU stripe begin first!
When is Matt Olson and NIU going to separate from BJU for not rebuking Chuck Phelps for two botched cases of child molestation and incest?
When is Matt Olson or Dave Doran going to publicly rebuke Bob Jones, III for his endorsement of a book written by a convicted child abuser Caleb Thompson?
When is BJU going to reject Ron Williams and separate from him for the child abuse he inflicts on the girls at Hephzibah House?
Certainly Driscoll does things that are over the line. He is rightly called out on it by conservative evangelicals. Where is the outcry among fundamentalists for the sins of their brothers?
O yeah, they are not a denomination so they don’t need to point out the sins of those other ministries and men who use the label “fundamentalist!” But they can criticize and call for separation from conservative evangelicals (neo-evangelicals)! Ironically, true, biblical separation does take place among conservative evangelicals. But it does not take place among self-identified fundamentalists, unless you count BJU uninviting Matt Olson with regard to delivering the graduation speech!
But where there is real, blatant sin, fundamentalists do not separate. They ignore it and claim that it is a local church issue or there is no mechanism to separate because we are all independent and autonomous. Right.
When is Matt Olson and NIU going to separate from BJU for not rebuking Chuck Phelps for two botched cases of child molestation and incest?
When is Matt Olson or Dave Doran going to publicly rebuke Bob Jones, III for his endorsement of a book written by a convicted child abuser Caleb Thompson?
When is BJU going to reject Ron Williams and separate from him for the child abuse he inflicts on the girls at Hephzibah House?
Certainly Driscoll does things that are over the line. He is rightly called out on it by conservative evangelicals. Where is the outcry among fundamentalists for the sins of their brothers?
O yeah, they are not a denomination so they don’t need to point out the sins of those other ministries and men who use the label “fundamentalist!” But they can criticize and call for separation from conservative evangelicals (neo-evangelicals)! Ironically, true, biblical separation does take place among conservative evangelicals. But it does not take place among self-identified fundamentalists, unless you count BJU uninviting Matt Olson with regard to delivering the graduation speech!
But where there is real, blatant sin, fundamentalists do not separate. They ignore it and claim that it is a local church issue or there is no mechanism to separate because we are all independent and autonomous. Right.
but he isn’t singing Driscoll’s song.
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2011/08/22/reformed-and-charismatic/
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2011/08/22/reformed-and-charismatic/
I’ve never been willing to die on the hill of cessationism: that is, the belief that the miraculous gifts such as prophecy, healing, and tongues have ceased. I’m still not. Nevertheless, I am convinced that this position is neither exegetically sound nor historically compatible with Reformed theology.
Discussion