2012 StandPoint Conference Session 1: A Bridge Too Far

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……

Phil Johnson has been on Mark Driscoll’s trail for some time through the blogosphere. Mark Driscoll is ignoring Phil’s warning and rebukes. Doug Wilson has concerns and questions for Mark. Mark answers Doug in an open format he likes best: face to face. No computers.

Phil and Mark interact with Doug. All three like some good controversy. Could Doug, a cessationist, bring the both Phil and Mark together for moderating a public conversation (and debate)? In the West, young, Calvinistic evangelicals who are both cessationists and non-cessationists and back and forth on these issues could listen in.

et

JC

Allow me a few qualifiers. One, as to boundary issues and PJ, it is only to acknowledge this is a notable issue with hm and to give credit where credit is due which is that your objections are not unreasonable (though again I would find a greater cause for all your current efforts) and are based in part in a recognizable pattern of weakness in PJ and the petty bully surrogates who have blogged under his defacto oversight which ultimately lies at the feet if PJ, thus amplifying his indiscretions. But I would be amiss to fail to acknowledge many valuable contributions by PJ and his blog as well as his acknowledgement of the tendency to “pugnate” at times when something better could be done. Such admissions are rare by public Christian personalities and teachers. And specifically I do say you are right and that “pornographic divinations” unfairly describes MD’s context when such alleged visions came to him. I believe there is a more accurate theological/biblical description as well as contextual one that could reflect PJ’s cynicism (a cynicism I share on the matter and MD as a whole) without compromising his point with satisfying but inaccurate descriptions. And I will say I did not have Susan in mind with the earlier comment. She, to me, is exceptionally willing to see the points of others while sustaining the certainty of her own views.

[JCarpenter] 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?

Great Question! There were a number of Fundies who spoke out about it, but it sure was slow coming. In the end, it was a group of alumni and their online petition that seemed to make a difference.

I was unclear on your question, though: Are you saying that Phil Johnson is running a Fundamentalist Discernment ministry? Just wondering, since Phil being with us Fundies at Standpoint Conference (if Fundies we be) stirred some dissension. I would be amused to see this evidence that a person with a position of balance and moderation will always be shot at by the extremes.

The “Phil makes improper/unproven accusations” line of discussion is officially closing. If you want to start another thread on it, I have no objection.

The problem with the discussion on that particular topic is that JCarpenter wants have his view accepted at face value and see others prove him wrong. So he’s starting out with the perspective that his evaluation of Johnson is obvious and those who disagree or challenge are just being stubborn. Hence, he feels that he can claim is view “is not unproven” while Johnson’s criticisms of Driscoll are unproven. Since he’s assumed his position as a given at the start, he feels comfortable dismissing even authoritative third party sources such as dictionaries. In short, handles his view as one that is beyond argument and simultaneously handles other views as not being worthy of argument.

There’s no way to have a thoughtful exchange with those conditions in place.

So I’ll hazard that any new thread on the topic will also just go in circles.

In any case, we’ll unpublish or maybe move further posts on that issue. Meanwhile, there’s a lot of meat in Phil’s video worth talking about.

Aaron, I think you’re characterization of my approach is inaccurate. I know the English language pretty well, having a BA in it, worked as an editor, published articles, taught it to students learning it as a second language, etc. It’s simply a fact that the terms Johnson employs were inaccurate. I’ve explained that above and even given examples of how he could have used accurate terms while still expressing disapproval. In order for “thoughtful exchange” to go forward, facts have to be accepted. The thread goes in circles because some refuse to do so. And my original point is that someone who employs the kind of rhetorical bomb-throwing as Johnson shouldn’t be invited to a conference or have their talks posted as if they were an expert. Further, his handling of church history is so superficial as not to qualify as “meat”.

As for the racism issue: my question is that if Christians leaders should stand out against compromise and sin in the church (as they should) and the sin of racism has been practiced in churches and Christian institutions, then where have the public stances against that sin been? A Seattle pastor saying things Johnson doesn’t like is worthy of a series of blog posts, but the systematic oppression of a whole kind of people (many of whom are our brothers and sister in Christ) gets very little (or no) attention. Why? Is the passion really for preserving the purity of the church or for preserving the status quo?

….also off topic.

Has nothing to do with the OP, Phil’s video or even Mark Driscoll. Might be an interesting topic for another thread if we can get past generalizations.

Further, his handling of church history is so superficial as not to qualify as “meat”.

This part is on topic though…. which I appreciate.

He’s not mainly talking about church history, rather, an evaluation of whether Carson et. al’s “center bound set” idea is adequate as a way of defining the boundaries of authentic Christianity. The history is part of the argument there, though, I’ll give you that.

Perhaps you can get beyond generalizations and tell us where his analysis of history is inaccurate?

If the topic is that we’re called not always to “build bridges” but to “contend for the faith”, against sin for the purity of the church, and the church has been ravaged by a particular sin, but very few have opposed that sin, how is it “off topic”? Further, it gets right to the motivation. I agree with the gist of the call from Johnson that we can’t always be about “winning friends” but sometimes have to be willing to denounce sins (and even the people who champion those sins). But then why are we very selective about the sins and doctrinal deviations we denounce? Drunkenness and anything approaching sexual immorality get attacked, as they should. Liberal views of the errancy of the Bible get attacked, as they should. But violating what the Lord Jesus called “the second greatest commandment” (and which He said was like the first) gets mostly ignored. Why? The tolerance of that sin can’t be excused by arguing that it was a debatable issue. It’s not. It’s evil is plain and profound. Further, that sin tended to be the most accepted in many of the same areas where fundamentalism was also the most widespread, namely the South. So this suggests something about the motives of those who loudest for denouncing sin but skip this one: either (1) they are simply inconsistent, sadly effected by the world in this area while otherwise well-meaning or (2) their real reason for denouncing sin and “burning bridges” has little to do with a passion for the holiness of the bride of Christ but more to do with preserving their status quo.

I wonder, has Johnson taken a stand against racism? (By the way, I don’t know what the “OP” is.)

The scary thing is, if the church has been so worldly as not to stand against racism when it was widespread in its culture, then when acceptance of homosexuality becomes widespread (as it tragically looks like it will in a generation or so), then will the church have the courage to stand up against that?

It’s easy to bash a preacher who lives far up the coast, three states away, who likes to wear Mickey Mouse shirts while preaching. It’s much harder to stand against a sin that is so accepted that it’s a part of the whole society, backed by laws (like the segregation or the coming “hate crime” laws that could make denouncing homosexuality a crime), in which some of your own members are a part, which get you denounced as a radical or a “hater” if you do. If you’re willing to do that, as John Piper has, I respect you. If not, then I wonder … .

In a way I agree with Johnson about the centered set thing. Having a “centered set” as the focus, sounds great in theory: that the Lord Jesus and the gospel is at the center and that we can allow liberty for other secondary issues that are further away from the center. That sounds like a good ideal. And to D. A. Carson, who is an academic, it makes for great theory. But in practice I don’t see how it can work. Yes, the Lord Jesus and the gospel should be at the center. But then you immediately have to define who Jesus is. Is He God? Yes. Then you have to define who God is. Modalism or Trinitarianism? So, the Trinity. What did Jesus do to give us the gospel? The atonement. Then you have to define the atonement. How do you know any of this? The Bible. Then you have to define what the Bible is. The canon, it’s inspiration and inerrancy. So, even if you start with an idealistic goal of having a centered set, you’re still going to have to define the boundaries of the center. So I agree with Johnson that we need confessions of faith to define boundaries.

The problem with that arises when people confuse what should rightly be secondary issues with primary convictions that should mark the boundary. For example, last time I saw (over a decade ago), Masters Seminary made belief in pretribulation rapture a requirement. Under no historical definition of the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy should that theory qualify for a core conviction. So that’s part of what is motivating D. A. Carson, the continual problem with people focused on the boundaries who are confused about what doctrines should really be a part of those boundaries.

But statements of faith are necessary and Johnson is right that they have to be enforced. Historically, he used (very briefly) the examples of Harvard, Andover, and Fuller. He seems to be saying that the reason they declined was because they failed to uphold their statements of faith. First, I don’t know if Harvard or Andover actually had statements of faith. Harvard was founded (1636) by the Puritans to train men for ministry; it began to decline about two generations after its founding as first it accepted a softer, more ambiguous Calvinism, then Arminianism, then eventually Unitarianism and universalism. Yale was founded (1702) as a more faithful alternative to Harvard. Both Harvard and Andover became liberal because people in them ceased believing. Fuller strayed from it’s original statement of faith largely for the same reason people above refuse to acknowledge what “divination”, “scripted”, etc., mean in their context. That is, people came who redefined the terms in a way that served their purposes. They signed statements of faith, not consciously thinking they were lying, but because in their minds they reinterpreted the meanings of the statements. There is no way that a statement of faith can keep out someone who doesn’t really believe it if people are not committed to up-holding with integrity the meaning of the words as they were plainly, originally intended. There’s no substitute for integrity and integrity comes from a passion for God — not just a stern determination to enforce statements of faith.

Sorry about the jargon. OP stands for “original post” or “opening post.” It’s supposed to determine what the discussion is about… ironically, in a center-bound set sort of way. :D

I think the topic of racism—and what you’re saying about it in particular—is so broad, it’s pretty hard to see the relevance.

In any case, it doesn’t follow that if preacher A doesn’t say as much I think he should about about X, he has nothing of value to say about Y.

So whether it’s racism, gluttony, laziness or cheating on tax returns that is allegedly not being denounced enough, it would be hard to prove that what people are not saying (or not saying enough) proves they are wrong about what they are saying.

But as it stands, going by your own rules, you can’t accuse Phil of neglecting the topic of race unless you can prove it… and claiming that it’s true until disproved is not proof.

(Here’s a cute little video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rB2jmuZAJtw] illustrating the argumentum ad igorantium fallacy … The claim in the illustration: “There are aliens in the universe because you cannot prove there are not.” A quicker read on the fallacy http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html here .)

It would be pretty hard to comb through all of Phil’s ministry and produce proof of the neglect of any topic, much less neglect of a topic that is so fundamental to the Faith that the neglect itself must render everything else he has to say automatically untrue. Might be a bit easier to prove someone is not worth listening to, but in that case, wouldn’t your time be better spent just not listening to him? (vs. trying to persuade others not to listen to him?)

If you want to talk about the racism angle, JCarpenter, go ahead and start a new thread. I don’t think that there’s anyone who would object to having that discussion, and it is worth discussing. I’m just trying to keep this thread on track ;)

I think I’ve tried to remain on topic throughout this. The topic is, as I understand it, Phil Johnson’s call that we need boundaries to maintain. That, I don’t disagree with. However, I don’t think the messenger is a good example of how to do it. I’ve called into question the validity of his own rhetoric and tactics. Alex, above, says my examples are “mild” compared to examples he’s aware of. He’s probably right. I’ve read very little of Johnson and what little I have read or heard, I find problems with. I didn’t listen to the entire message above and have no plans to do so. There are many good, mature Christian leaders out there, genuine scholars (like D.A. Carson, or R.C. Sproul) or great preachers and some men who are both (like Mark Dever, John Piper, and the greats of history, like Martin Luther and the Puritans). My time is well spent learning from them. When I go to the pyromaniac site, it’s for the Spurgeon archives, not for Johnson.

Racism is an illustration of the problem because it is (1) a very serious sin (by Biblical standards), and at least was (2) widespread in our culture. That being the case, and if Johnson and others really believe in the importance of fighting for the proper Christian boundaries, then have they contended for the faith in that instance? If they haven’t, that doesn’t negate everything else they say. As I said, they could only be inconsistent. But it makes me wonder. Why do they spend so much time and energy going after fellow evangelicals in Mickey Mouse shirts but then hardly any on sins like racism. (And if they wouldn’t oppose racism in the past, will they be willing to oppose homosexuality in the future?) I don’t know about what Johnson has said about racism specifically. I asked a question. But I find it interesting so far we can’t cite numerous cases in which he has denounced it — but we can all easily think of examples of him denouncing preachers he doesn’t like.

Anyway, I think I engaged the centered set-bounded set issue pretty substantially above (“the center”). It’s not that I disagree with Johnson on the theory of maintaining the boundaries. It’s just that I don’t think, right now, he’s the one who has the maturity to do that.

[JCarpenter] I think I’ve tried to remain on topic throughout this. The topic is, as I understand it, Phil Johnson’s call that we need boundaries to maintain. That, I don’t disagree with. However, I don’t think the messenger is a good example of how to do it. I’ve called into question the validity of his own rhetoric and tactics. Alex, above, says my examples are “mild” compared to examples he’s aware of. He’s probably right. I’ve read very little of Johnson and what little I have read or heard, I find problems with. I didn’t listen to the entire message above and have no plans to do so. There are many good, mature Christian leaders out there, genuine scholars (like D.A. Carson, or R.C. Sproul) or great preachers and some men who are both (like Mark Dever, John Piper, and the greats of history, like Martin Luther and the Puritans). My time is well spent learning from them. When I go to the pyromaniac site, it’s for the Spurgeon archives, not for Johnson.

Racism is an illustration of the problem because it is (1) a very serious sin (by Biblical standards), and at least was (2) widespread in our culture. That being the case, and if Johnson and others really believe in the importance of fighting for the proper Christian boundaries, then have they contended for the faith in that instance? If they haven’t, that doesn’t negate everything else they say. As I said, they could only be inconsistent. But it makes me wonder. Why do they spend so much time and energy going after fellow evangelicals in Mickey Mouse shirts but then hardly any on sins like racism. (And if they wouldn’t oppose racism in the past, will they be willing to oppose homosexuality in the future?) I don’t know about what Johnson has said about racism specifically. I asked a question. But I find it interesting so far we can’t cite numerous cases in which he has denounced it — but we can all easily think of examples of him denouncing preachers he doesn’t like.

Anyway, I think I engaged the centered set-bounded set issue pretty substantially above (“the center”). It’s not that I disagree with Johnson on the theory of maintaining the boundaries. It’s just that I don’t think, right now, he’s the one who has the maturity to do that.

So you’ve read very little of Johnson by your own admission, but you’re ready to condemn him for spending very little time condemning racism and to wonder if he’ll stand against homosexuality? You’re right…you’ve read very little of Johnson. And you accuse others of rhetorical bomb-throwing?

I haven’t read enough of you condemning bestiality, or Anders Breivik’s killing spree, or Greek neo-Nazis, or Apollinarianism or Donatism. So I really don’t think you should ever say anything about anything another evangelical might be doing, no matter how bad. Sorry. :)

You got me, JG. I guess I’d have to get up pretty early in the morning to pull one over on you…especially since you are what, 8 hours ahead of me? :)

By the way, have you heard that Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality?

[Greg Long] By the way, have you heard that Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality?

Does that mean Obama is right????? :Sp

For the record, BJU practiced a limited form of racial segregation but not racism. Racial segregation and racism are not categorically the same. And this is even further off topic so forgive me but I felt it needed said to be fair to BJU.

I watched the video again, because this thread was SO far from http://growingthroughgrace.com/?cat=29] the original subject -

…bridge-building, boundary-guarding, brotherhood, belief, and the problem of how to cultivate all of those things without compromise. In the process, I’ll touch on The Gospel Coalition, The Elephant Room, and some other topics that will be familiar to our regular readers.

In my experience, http://www.mpbchurch.com/site/cpage.asp?sec_id=3421&cpage_id=17831] this is a viable assessment of more than just a few churches-

…seemingly good, orthodox, spiritually-qualified men, but evidently some of them were secretly harboring heretical beliefs. And they were just waiting for Paul to move on so that they could begin teaching their own ideas.

It does seem as if many pastors have walked away from shepherding and are now engaged in marketing, and instead of protecting the flock they are guarding their paycheck.

I just listened to most of Phil’s message again (well past the point where he talked about the Elephant Room), and I searched the transcript provided, but I cannot find any reference by Phil to the Elephant Room as having been “scripted.” This has been the primary, repeated accusation against him based on the video above, right? So can anyone tell me exactly where Phil actually said this? Where is it in the transcript? Can you give me the quote with the page number? Or where is it in the video? Can you give me the time at which it occurs?

Having listened to Phil’s message twice now — once trying to hear that word — I am surprised that I haven’t heard it when it has been repeatedly asserted here that he said it.

All discussion on racism and segregation should be moved http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-fundamentalism-and-racism] to a new thread that I have expressly created for the topic . If any further posts on that subject appear in this thread, they will be hidden. This particular thread is for discussion of Phil Johnson’s Standpoint video session.

In regards to the friction between members - if you don’t like what someone else is saying, either about yourself or what you have said, please respond to them and respectfully point out where they are wrong or provide additional information that would cause them to reconsider. This is a place where ideas and opinions are exchanged, and that kind of friction is to be expected at times. After all, if we all agreed with each other, there wouldn’t be a lot of compelling discussion, would there?

If anyone would like to read more about the position of SI in terms of discussion that is and is not permissible, please read the http://sharperiron.org/sharperiron-forum-comment-policy] site comment policy . I’ll excerpt the opening section here:

To be a helpful and appreciated participant in discussions at SI, here’s a few things to keep in mind:

* Aim to be consistently respectful. If you get involved in discussions on controversial topics, someone will think you’re being disrespectful sooner or later. You want to make sure they’re wrong about that.

* Try to stay on topic. This is a famously subjective call. Do your best. If you think your comment might be seen as unrelated, include something to help us see the connection.

* Broaden your horizons. If you always harp on one or two topics and rarely show any interest in others, people will tend to dismiss you as a crank.

* Focus on ideas. The old adage “consider the source” has its merits, but the source of an idea never really proves it to be true or false.

* When a discussion is on a controversial topic, extra effort is required to leave irrelevant factors out of it. So going after somebody’s intelligence or educational background or gender or age or favorite cricket team is usually not helpful to making your point or refuting theirs.

* Wear your big-boy pants. Human interaction is messy—especially where strong opinions are involved. Discussions go far better when participants are slow to take offense. If someone’s a bit prickly, why not just ignore it and stay on topic? Sure, it’s bad to be rude. It’s not much better to be a cry baby.

Wow. For two or three days this thread had only six comments, so I stopped watching it. Then when I looked again yesterday afternoon it had nearly 60 comments, so I put off reading them till I had a spare moment. That didn’t happen until tonight.

Sorry I missed the discussion.

For the record, I stand by everything I have ever said about Mark Driscoll’s smutty “visions” and his unhealthy preoccupation with erotic themes and raunchy talk. For reasons already cited by several commenters here, I don’t think the expression “pornographic divination” is an unfair or inaccurate description of the claims Driscoll made on the videotape in question. Though I made no reference to that in the above message, here’s a link to the source for anyone wondering what all the fuss is about:

http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2011/08/pornographic-divination.html

Also: I remain convinced that the outcome of the Elephant Room (not the actual words of the discussion, but the metanarrative) was scripted in advance. A day or two after speaking directly with James MacDonald about my concerns (during the first week of October 2011—months before the event), I made these predictions about ER2:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j-Ffnqq6vE

My predictions, which were spot-on, speak for themselves. Note: The prescience that led to those statements did not come from a mystical television screen in my head, but from a reasoned interpretation of what I heard directly from James MacDonald. The “script” followed at the event itself was precisely what MacDonald himself told me he wanted to occur. Given his subsequent treatment of Voddie Baucham, Dan McGhee, and others who had different opinions about Jakes, ***PLUS the fact that neither Driscoll nor anyone else dared to raise any questions about Jakes’s prosperity doctrines (_despite the fact that I and many others had URGED MacDonald not to let that issue be neglected_),*** I think it’s perfectly reasonable to conclude that the outcome of the ER2 discussions was indeed determined well in advance. I.e., the direction and the result of the “conversation” were scripted.

Anyway, thanks to those who attempted to answer Mr. Carpenter. He has posted the same soliloquy in several forums. I answered him once and he brushed me off the way he has brushed off others here. There’s a famous Bible verse that instructs us how to deal with people who do that.

I am glad you could take part in the exchange here, and I want to personally let you know just how much I have appreciated your ministry, brother. As I posted in an early entry in this discussion, I couldn’t agree more with the thoroughly Biblical sentiments expressed in “A Bridge Too far.” I hope and pray that I and my fellow elders at Immanuel Baptist Church will continue by God’s grace to live out such ministry.

Keith

thanks phil

I really thought the illustration of the weaknesses of having a center bounded movement were well illustrated, and Phil did and excellent job of defining all of my unspoken concerns with TGC. I did think that ER2 would be a huge test for TGC, and I was very, very disappointed to see now only how long it took for them to expel Driscoll and MacDonald, but also that there seemed to be a very high level of internal politicking going on as to whether or not they would do anything to either council member for damaging their self-proclaimed doctrinal boundaries.

I also thought that Phil’s emphasis on having both a center bounded AND a strong perimeter to the group is well needed, and I wish that Fundamentalism would do a better job of enumerating not just the core (the famous five fundamentals), but of identifying those peripheral issues that we could agree on as ‘endpoints for fellowship’. I understand that there is a lot of varigated streams in the ‘movement’ (which is why I even hesitate to call it a movement anymore), but surely there is something that we can come up with. Perhaps this explains a resurgence of interest in church creeds and confessions?

It used to be ‘separation’ was the perimeter fence, but look at how a failure to articulate a principle for how and why we separate got us…Fundys began to separate over trivial things (or dropped those perimeter fences entirely in disgust). Now we not only have a missing perimeter fence, i’m not even sure that we have a doctrinal core that we could agree on.

Finally got around to watching Phil’s video. Loved the preppy look. :o)

I appreciated Phil’s comments. Well done! I particularly noted the discussion related to the distinction between center-verses-boundary-boundedness (whew!). I’m not so sure that, rightly defined, both cannot be put into practice. For example, the pastor—elders at our church must not only subscribe to our own statement of faith, as well as our own written statements on church policy and doctrine, but also the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals statement of faith, which is more explicitly Calvinistic than our own. We expect our elders and deacons to be like-minded on all of the core doctrines and practices of our church. However, we understand that not everyone in the pew is on the same page. By that I mean, there are some who don’t think in such specific theological terms, there are some who aren’t sure, there are some who don’t know, there are immature / ignorant believers who need to be patiently instructed. We expect co-laborers (members) to be in agreement in the central truths of the Gospel. We expect them to to born-again believers who have been baptized under the authority of a true church. They must subscribe to our doctrinal standards, a statement that reflects the core of reformational orthodoxy. While we teach them what we believe, and what we teach, we don’t force them to adhere to 5 point Calvinism in order for them to minister among us. To be sure, they will not be permitted to be divisive or to contradict the teaching authority of the elders, but we will not forbid them membership and ministry, either. We expect them to be teachable. We have attempted to be tenacious in regard to the Gospel, and charitable in regard to what I may call secondary or tertiary matters. I have used the illustration of a round target with concentric rings and a bull’s-eye in the center. The Gospel (justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone) is at the center, along with matter’s pertaining to theology proper (i.e. the Triunity of God, inspiration of Scripture). Other matters I would deem very, very significant, such as God’s sovereignty over *all* things. But, if one misses the mark on these issues, it will not necessarily mean that they will miss the Kingdom, either. At the outer edge are many matters where very good, like-minded, godly men may humbly disagree with one another. We must allow for the priesthood of the believer and trust that the Holy Spirit will work as He will in each believer’s life. All this to say, we practice both center-boundedness and boundary-boundedness. If we put all our focus on the core, to the neglect of the outer boundaries, we fall prey to existential liberalism (as Phil points out). If we put all our focus on boundaries (boundaries that are not necessarily fundamental) we run the risk of becoming legalistic pharisees.

I hope this is all taken in the spirit intended.

Clearly Johnson’s attack on an evangelical pastor fails the definitions even he provides at his own blog post. In no way does what Johnson’s victim said meet the definition of “pornographic” as ” in a manner intended to stimulate erotic … feelings”. As for the “divination” charge, I stand by what I’ve said above. As for “scripted”, his attempt now to redefine “scripted” rather than just apologize, is problematic. Clearly “scripted” doesn’t mean a “scripted” “metanarrative”, whatever that is supposed to mean, or just vague guidelines as to the matter of discussion. Further, note that he doesn’t produce any proof. Where’s the script Phil? What he doesn’t seem to understand is that he doesn’t have a right to go around making accusations about people without proof using exaggerated, inflammatory rhetoric.

Someone can’t guard the boundaries if he can’t be trusted to make accurate accusations.

Also, for the record, I have no recollection of getting a response directly from Mr. Johnson before. I sent a personal message to him and was not answered. I posted similar questions and challenges at his facebook page and rather than being answered, I was blocked. The original pyromaniac attack where he virtually accuses an evangelical pastor of witchcraft and pornography, is not open for new comments. So I don’t know to what he is referring. In addition, he seems to be implying that I simply shouldn’t be paid attention to. So, consider what we have in Mr. Johnson: a man who makes it his business to throw rhetorical bombs at other evangelicals, in inaccurate terms, sometimes with no proof whatsoever, and, when questioned, insists that the questioner shouldn’t be paid attention to. Is that really the kind of person who should take it upon himself to be the critic of the church?

Those who do not believe in the sufficiency of God’s word have to run interference for each other. It is all or nothing with them.

JC, watching 2 people engage in explicit sexual activity is pornographic. That is what Mark claims God showed him. Mark also proceeded to relay the story with others. That is also pornographic.

So in Mark’s little world, God is okay with pornography and the replay of it through description to others.

Such a person is unfit for ministry and grossly out of touch with NT Christianity.

To further the evidence of Driscoll’s pornography fascination, one only needs to read his real marriage book.

http://www.dennyburk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/8-Lambert.pdf] Review of Real Marriage

JCarp:

he seems to be implying that I simply shouldn’t be paid attention to

I didn’t mean to imply that. I thought I was making it fairly emphatic.

No matter. I think Mr. C’s refusal to heed either counsel or correction pretty much speaks for itself.

Hi James K, your definition of pornography does not fit the definition Johnson himself posted on his blog, quoted in part in my post immediately above. By the definition you stated (e.g. “relay the story with others”) parts of the Bible would be pornographic. So, you need to revise your definition.

I believe firmly in the inspiration, sufficiency, and inerrancy of scripture, including the 9th commandment against bearing false witness.

Hi Phil, No Biblical correction has been offered to me. The very definitions you posted yourself on your blog support what I’ve said from the beginning. But I’ve given you much mature correction, especially about being honest in your characterizations. You fail to heed it and remain obstinate in your inaccurate, unsubstantiated attacks. By the way, where’s that script?

JC, I am sorry you don’t understand.

For the Record, PJ is not the only Christian leader who has identified Mark Driscoll’s work as pornographic in nature. Heath Lambert, assistant professor of pastoral theology at Boyce College, reviewed Driscoll’s recent marriage book http://www.dennyburk.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/8-Lambert.pdf] here . One point he made:

The Driscolls desire for people to avoid a pornographic culture, but much of their book grows out of that same pornographic culture and will guide many people into it.

When Phil points out that Driscoll seems obsessed with things pornographic, he is not alone in this assessment.

No Biblical correction has been offered to me.

I don’t want to dive back in here but I will simply point out that this is not exactly true since I have quoted both secular dictionaries and biblical scholars offering correction to you on the definition of divination, and you have “failed to heed it and remain obstinate in your inaccurate, unsubstantiated” definition. My correction was both biblical in content (since it was both true and used biblical examples) and, to the best of my knowledge and intent, biblical in spirit. If you maintain that divination is always connected to witchcraft, then you have to say that things like choosing priests or replacement apostles were acts of witchcraft, and I doubt you want to go that far. I could be wrong, though. I have been before and will be again, I am sure.

Which brings up a bit of a strange irony—you want to argue for the exact written definition of pornography while rejecting the exact written definition of divination. It seems to me that you can’t have it both ways.

But your last couple of posts here presents an interesting study in hermeneutics: A guy comes and tells us what he means, and then you stand up and say, “No, he doesn’t know what he is talking about. He thinks he means one thing but he actually means what I say he means.” I suppose it is easier to win an argument when you get to tell your opponent what they mean by what they say. But it doesn’t make a lot of sense. The truth is that Phil means whatever he says he means. He may be a poor communicator, and choose words that are confusing (or that aren’t confusing to most), but he still means what he says, not what you say.

Hi Chip,

The quote you give from Lambert is more carefully crafted than is Johnson’s inflammatory accusation of “pornographic divination” and possibly true. But I don’t think this is the thread for discussing the Driscolls. This thread is about Johnson and so can include his problems with rhetoical bomb throwing.

Pastor K, I do understand. Please review my statement.

Hi Larry, Again, if you’re continuing to say that Johnson was using the word “divination” in a morally neutral way, you’re just not being honest. And by not being honest, your “correction” is not Biblical. Please get serious. Johnson’s use of terms fail by the very definitions he posted himself.

Again, if you’re continuing to say that Johnson was using the word “divination” in a morally neutral way, you’re just not being honest.

I don’t want to take this off track again, but let me again be clear: I never said that Johnson used “divination” in a morally neutral way. So I obviously can’t continue to be saying something I never said to begin with. (I just went back and reread everything I said to make sure.) Please at least be clear about what I actually said, even if you choose not to accept the quoted definitions.

And this relates to the topic here because you want to say that whatever Johnson says in this presentation (and elsewhere) can’t or shouldn’t be trusted because of (1) his rhetoric, and (2) his inaccurate charges based on definitions. Yet you participate in inflammatory rhetoric (defended by claiming you are accurate) and you make inaccurate charges based on definitions. So why should we trust your evaluation of Johnson? You are not accurately relating what is said right on this page and the page before which can be plainly seen. I don’t know if that is because you don’t understand it, don’t read it closely, or what. But I think it undermines your point in a fairly significant way.

So whether you like Johnson or not, please be clear about what I am saying.

Hi Larry,

That’s just false. I am accurately relating what is said and you cannot point to one inaccuracy on my part. Please review what I’ve posted earlier. You’ve now just admitted that Johnson wasn’t using “divination” to refer to seeking God (therefore excluding the morally neutral possibilities in the dictionary definition that you were apparently trying to exonerate Johnson with). So you have NO basis on which to accuse me of being inaccurate based on dictionary definitions. I have a BA in English, worked as an editor, published various articles, and have Ph.D. in church history. I know what Johnson has posted and that it is wrong. Even by the very definitions that Johnson himself posted. To say that Johnson’s terms are appropriately used, based on the dictionary, is wrong. Words have a range of meaning in their dictionary definition but their intended meaning in any context depends on the way they were used. We all know that Johnson was suggesting some kind of other-than-holy supernatural source when he decided to use the term “divination.” (You admitted that he wasn’t using the term in a morally neutral way which means that he was suggesting that his victim was involved in some kind of spiritualism.) His use of “pornographic” doesn’t even meet the dictionary definition he provided (as quoted above). (Johnson’s own dictionary definition of pornography supports the initial definition I provided in my first post.) Third, he has absolutely no proof of the Elephant Room being “scripted”. So we have three terms: 1) divination, 2) pornographic, 3) scripted, all of which are clearly used inaccurately. These are now the proven facts. I’m sorry that you refuse to accept these facts. If you feel the inclination of falsely accusing me again of being inaccurate, please don’t because you’re either being ignorant or misleading.

Strong language is appropriate when it is accurate. The Bible shows us that. Johnson’s problem is that he is not accurate. The Bible speaks very strongly of those who slander other people.

JCarpenter,

I am not sure what you are referring to when you write, “Pastor K, I do understand. Please review my statement.”

What is this about? Are you referring to what James K said, when he wrote, “JC, I am sorry you don’t understand”?

Keith

Hi Pastor K,

Yes, sorry I misidentified to whom I was responding. I was too lazy to go back and check!

To all—especially those who organized the Standpoint conference:

I’m sorry this thread got derailed by JCarpenter.

A word about Mr. Carpenter: he has been spamming my Facebook page and apparently some other forums for several weeks with these same cut-and-paste accusations. Although he has been answered repeatedly by many different people, he clearly is not interested in considering any point of view other than his own—including any dictionary definition that debunks his skewed notion of “inaccuracy.” In his deluded mind, his original accusations “are now the proven facts.” Every answer to his accusations is immediately dismissed and thus, by his way of thinking, it all becomes more proof of how invincibly right he was in the first place.

I’m not sure why Mr. Carpenter is so desperate to defend Mark Driscoll’s penchant for visualizing and describing others’ private lascivious acts, but it seems an odd issue for a pastor to make into a moral crusade. That he would take up such a cause and run from forum to forum all over the Internet making railing accusations and provoking disputes about words to no profit says more about the crusader than it says about either the person he is accusing or the person he is defending. But every tree is known by its fruit.

Again, I wish we could have had a real discussion about the issues addressed in the message above. Perhaps someday we will.

Final Mod Note

Anyone who posts in this thread about Mr. Carpenter or Mr. Johnson’s motives in this thread - or anything in regard to Driscoll’s visions - will be unpublished. Take all discussion of the pornographic divination charge or Mr. Johnson’s motives to the http://sharperiron.org/filings/8-15-11/19843] appropriate thread .

JCarpenter,

I finally found the place where Johnson referred to the Elephant Room as “scripted,” in an article on his blog, and I had already read his article in which he referred to Mark Driscoll’s “pornographic divination.” Frankly, I didn’t have a problem with either blog article. I understood the meaning when reading both, and I am sure it would never have occurred to me the take his terms the way that you have. I am simply too familiar with the terms not to know that they have the range of meaning with which Johnson has used them. I have also read the various posts on the matter in this “discussion,” but I haven’t bothered to say much up to now for two reasons: 1) In my opinion, Larry has pretty much said anything that needs to be said about it, and 2) I am quite certain that absolutely nothing I say about the points being argued will make the slightest bit of difference to you.

So I am writing this entry to let you know that I have no intention of interacting with you at all from this point on about anything whatsoever. You have demonstrated an inability to really listen to what others have to say and a pencahnt for pretty consistently questioning the motives of anyone who dares to disagree with you, accusing them of refusing to be honest, etc., despite cited proof of their points (as if disagreeing with you in itself amounts to lying). At any rate, I am saddened at the way this whole thread has developed and have no desire to be a part of it any longer. I will confine myself to reading (and sometimes interacting) with the many other truly beneficial discussions on this forum. But as long as you are participating in this thread, I won’t be.

Phil,

I too am truly sorry about how things have gone here, and I want you to know that I am grateful for what I have seen of your ministry thus far. I pray that God will raise up more men with your heart and courage in the churches.

In Christ,

Keith