Phil Johnson has replied here, mostly to Doug Wilson’s post but mentions me as well at a couple of points, so I’ll throw out a few other comments for whatever it’s worth.
First off, Doug’s follow up post here is really helpful in defining the issues and terms, and I’m in full agreement with it. And I would only reiterate what Doug mentioned in his earlier post that these principles ought to be the ground work for further discussion on what the Westminster Confession calls “private spirits” and what Driscoll calls the “gift of discernment.” Our common commitment to the finished and final authority of Scripture should give us the common ground to be able to have a conversation about what Driscoll talks about. And there are numerous indicators that Driscoll really is committed to the authority of Scripture, so it’s not like trying to find common ground for a conversation about fiscal responsibility with a congressman.
But here are my two bits: A large part of my concern in all this is to uphold biblical standards of justice. The Bible says that an accusation should not be brought against an elder except by the mouths of two or three witnesses (1 Tim. 5:19). This is the New Testament reaffirmation of the Old Testament principle of justice still enshrined in our American law code: the accused are to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty (cf. Dt. 17:6, 19:15, Mt. 18:16, 2 Cor. 13:1, Heb. 10:28).
This means God requires His people to take extreme precautions to protect those who are accused.
It’s not enough to have two or three people exclaiming, “Holy Smokes! Did you hear what Driscoll said?!” “I know I can’t believe it!” “Sweet Fancy Moses!” They can’t just convene a heresy trial on the spot and convict him in the comments of a blog post. And to be clear, I’m not suggesting that anyone seriously was considering that. But some of the rhetoric can get pretty piping hot, and it’s not so clear to all bystanders/readers exactly what people mean.
It’s not enough for a guy to say, “I’m a witness.” Terms need to be defined, witnesses need to be cross examined, testimonies compared, etc., before judgment is rendered. Now, hear me clearly: I’m not saying that a pastor or elder can’t stand up and wave the warning flag and sound the red alert on somebody that has all the makings of a huckster and a conman. Shepherds need to protect their sheep, but lobbing H – bombs off your blog’s balcony can be just as injudicious as Driscoll claiming that Jesus told him something – as though he were St. Paul’s hipster clone or something.
For instance, I thought there was a helpful back and forth, a little Q and A in the comments of Doug’s previous post regarding what exactly qualifies as “pornographic.” Is it pornographic for Ezekiel to spout his obscenities? I would argue that Ezekiel is being obscene, but that his obscenity is clearly in the service of doing a demo job on Israelite unfaithfulness and therefore not pornographic, not guilty of the sin of porneas, sexual immorality. This would be in the same category as Paul’s wish that the Galatian Judiazers would get out their machetes and just finish off the deed already (Gal. 5:12). The same Paul who condemned coarse jesting and filthy speech could stoop to bit of holy doggerel on occasion, as could his Master as well (e.g. Mt. 23).
Someone in the comments said it would be sinful (i.e. pornographic) for a man to see another man’s wife or daughter uncovered, even if the man had enough spiritual fortitude to be unmoved toward any indecency. And I would ordinarily heartily concur. Three cheers for fidelity and modesty. But does this condemn every Christian male OBGYN who regularly finds himself viewing the “nakedness” of women who are not his wife or daughter? I hope not, else the gestations and births of my four children have been the occasions of great evil. Seems to me that the “uncovering of nakedeness” that is expressly forbidden in the Scriptures is for the purpose of sexual immorality. There may be tons of wisdom (and surely is) in avoiding exposure to certain kinds of images and circumstances, and I certainly wouldn’t encourage every young man I know to pursue a calling in women’s health. Likewise, if someone sends me pictures of his wife caught in the act of adultery, there are good reasons to use extreme caution, avoiding the need to view any of them. My guess is that police officers, detectives, emergency response personnel, etc. undoubtedly find themselves in contact with images (live or recorded) that could undoubtedly be occasions for sin. But those occasions are not necessarily “pornographic” (i.e. sexually immoral) merely based on the fact of nakedness.
Again, the point here isn’t to exonerate Driscoll as I though I don’t think there could be improvements in his presentation of this stuff. But it is to defend him from the accusations of blatant sin, which I take the adjective “pornographic” to necessarily imply. Unwise or unclear on certain counts? Sure. Sin? I didn’t hear anything that required that conclusion. Could there be sin in his words/actions/thoughts? Of course, it’s possible, but according to Biblical standards of justice, you can’t convict a guy simply because you strongly suspect him.
Along the same lines, I think the term “divination” could use some tightening up. Divination is a pretty serious charge, one which according to Old Testament law required the death penalty. The most I think anyone could really accuse Driscoll of is being muddled, and I would love to see him interact with Doug’s theses in particular. By Driscoll’s own account, he isn’t always 100% right which means he can’t be claiming to be a “prophet” according to the standards of Dt. 18. At the same time, the point I made several times in my previous post is that Driscoll seems to clearly appreciate the need for accountability and witnesses and therefore seeks it out which is consistent with the spirit of biblical justice for this sort of thing. At the same time, just because you doubt that Driscoll has real accountability from other elders and pastors is not sufficient grounds for accusing a minister of being a false prophet. The standard by which you judge is the standard by which you will be judged (Mt. 7:2).
Speaking of which, what I want to know is why to this point no one has pointed out the most distressing part of that Driscoll clip that Phil Johnson posted. Was no one as completely distracted by the Micky Mouse t-shirt as I was? I would never wear anything so ridiculous….
Joshua Olson says
thank you for your balanced and judicious post. It is breath of fresh air in the “christian” cyber-blog arena where one seems to be able to say anything about anyone without regard as to whether Christ would have him or her say it or not.
graham veale says
I am sorry, but I have never seen a greater act of cowardice on the part of an elder. Either Phil Johnson has effectively lied by showing a clip taken out of context, or Mark Driscoll lied about these conversations – which are prurient in content (not at all like Scripture) and wildly implausible (as if a husband could listen to such a revelation in such a calm conversational manner).
Driscoll’s appeal to “repressed memories” in abuse victims is beyond the pale. If we give him credence on this point, imagine the power that he gains as a spiritual leader.
Doug Wilson hammers those outside the Reformed camp. Why do you and he not apply the same standards to those within the Reformed camp. Again, there are two choices. Driscoll is a fraud, or Johnson is a liar. There is no middle ground. There is no room for discussion. There is no need for dialogue.
There is a need for a little bit of guts.
Graham Veale.
graham veale says
Shame on you, sir!
graham veale says
I’ll begin by apologising for yesterday’s outburst. I cannot retract the charge of cowardice, I’m afraid, but we’re all guilty of that from time to time.
However, I hope that my reaction indicates the concern that many people are feeling after watching Pr Driscoll’s sermon. Now that I have listened to the comments in their context I am bewildered. I do wish that Phil Johnson had not drawn attention to a video that I found spiritually distressing. This should have been dealt with privately. However, he is not guilty of misrepresenting Pr Driscoll. (Much to my chagrin – I am not a “Reformed Cessationist” or Mr Johnson’s mould.)
My primary concern is that Pr Driscoll’s stories have horrified my Charismatic friends. This is not a case of “culture shock”. The potential for spiritual abuse here is obvious. No-one can falsify Pr Driscoll’s visions. Suppose the wife had denied the affair, that Pr Driscoll so vividly described. Well, she would deny that wouldn’t she. Having been “proved right” once (by relaying this tale to his congregation) Pr Driscoll’s future visions will always be taken as plausible “prima facie”. This places unusual power in Driscoll’s hands. One “vision” could destroy a reputation and a marriage.
There was also something misogynistic about describing a woman’s sexual activity to her in front of her husband – to the extent of explaining how and why she was aroused. This was deeply humiliating to her, and to her husband. Let us say that Pr Driscoll had a vision. This is trivial – possession of a miraculous gift cut’s little ice with Jesus (Matt 7) or Paul (1 Cor 12-13). If the vision was real, the manner in which he confronted the woman with the vision was unloving and unwise. This was held up as an example for those with his gift to follow.
I am also deeply concerned about Driscoll’s appeal to “repressed memories” of child abuse which are, to say the very least, controversial. Neither do we have any clear evidence that any child has been dedicated to an occult organisation. (These are both “urban legends” that were popular about the time that Pr Driscoll began his ministry.) In any case Pr Driscoll’s retelling of these stories seems a tad implausible. It reflected none of the psychological trauma that abuse victims feel. (And paedophiles do not typically offer confessions in such a casual manner!)
Again, let us leave the issue of Pr Driscoll’s veracity to one side (although, let me add, that as a High School teacher I “cold read” one class every year to demonstrate the skills and techniques that a fraud will use to fool a “mark”. One method is to have a trustworthy pupil, who is in on the game and who has agreed to be part of my ruse, to confess to something embarrassing ( a boy might pretend that he owns a pink teddy-bear) because I have a “vision” of it. This convinces the class that I can use “educational psychology” to read their minds. The difference is that I confess to the class that it has all been a sham at the end of the lesson. They learn to be wary of those claiming supernatural powers, even when you want to give them the benefit of the doubt!)
But as I have said, put Pr Driscoll’s credibility to one side. The power that he has as a counsellor is limitless. Now that he has gone public with this gift, he can sow seeds of suspicion at will. He can accuse innocent men of child abuse, and they will never be able to prove him wrong. After all – they would deny it wouldn’t they? Of course, he does not claim to be infallible. But the mere possibilty of being accused of this, or having one’s children suspect one of this, will make many fathers think twice before they criticise Pr Driscoll. Whether he sought it or not, Pr Driscoll now has more power than one man should have. The threat of public shame is a powerful weapon; Pr Driscoll wields it like a school-boy who has discovered that the gun cabinet is unlocked.
Pr Driscoll’s demonology is more disturbing, and in fact, puts him outside evangelicalism. Not Reformed evangelicalism, or cessationist evangelicalism. He has created a “tradition” for ridding a person of demons. He has not based this on Scripture – the odd allusion to Acts does not count. He tells would be exorcists not to say “x” to a demon, but rather use method “y”. If you don’t the demon will do “a,b or c”.
His counsellors can now download and follow this method, which has no scriptural warrant. In fact, it is completely at odds with the scriptural picture of possession and demonic encounters. Did “legion” levitate? Did he speak with a deep masculine voice? This owes more to “The Exorcist” and ’70s horror shows than it does to the Bible.
I found his attitude to the demonic to be sensationalist and dangerous. He could easily misdiagnose the intrusive thoughts associated with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder as demonic possession. (If those thoughts are the result of demonic activity, why do they respond to SSRI’s?) I dread to think what would happen if someone with bipolar schizophrenia or manic depression entered the counsellor’s room. Even if safe-guards are in place (and this would mean having a qualified psychiatrist with the relevant clinical experience in the room) these are not mentioned in an on-line lecture. This is the height of Pastoral irresponsibilty. If this advice is followed to the letter it will put lives in danger. A blind man could see that!
He also seems to encourage Christians to listen to “voices” that might be demonic in counselling sessions. Why any Pastor would want to encourage contact with demons is beyond me. But again, this is not a practice even hinted at by Scripture. It is not that Pr Driscoll has had experiences that are not described by the Bible. It is that Pr Driscoll derives a demonology from those experiences and teaches them to others without serious reference to Scripture. Other than to say “this sounds a wee bit like the stories in Acts” and a bit of random proof-texting, I can see no attempt to provide a biblical warrant for this “how-to” guide to exorcism. All of Pr Driscoll’s authority derives from his own personal experience. He does not even pay lip service to reason or Church History.
This is an attempt to set up a man made tradition on demonology. This puts Pr Driscoll at odds with evangelical theology. In “Six Modern Myths” Phillip Sampson points out that Reformed Churches helped bring the witch trials to an end. Enlightenment figure, open to experience, were prepared to concede that certain individuals might have occult powers, and that they should be opposed by force.
Calvin, however, took a different approach. The Bible was our guide to the supernatural. The Bible did not attribute malevolent or spectacular powers (like levitation) to witches or demons. Therefore, those who reported that they had seen witches levitate were most likely mistaken. We had no Scriptural grounds to try anyone on the grounds of such unlikely stories. The witch trials vanished as a result of Protestantism, not the Enlightenment.
So you can see, I hope, why I believe that Pr Driscoll has erred so terribly. We are back to the logic of the Witch Trials. The demonic is real. You seem demonic. You have a demon. You must be helped. Or stopped.
The silence about this horrendous video is deafening on “The Gospel Coalition” website, and I can only pray that it is dealing with the issues behind closed doors. That would, in all honesty, be preferrable to the “pyromaniacs” public trial. But at least you have not ignored the issue altogether, and have attempted some response. So perhaps my charge of cowardice was unwarranted. Perhaps you have more guts than I gave you credit for.
Graham Veale
Aaron Siver says
Hi Toby,
Thanks for your continued efforts to tread so carefully in these matters. I find myself in a similar position having spent a rather lengthy amount of my adult life in the company of Pentecostals and Charismatics (who were by no means as screwy as they come) but came over to the Reformed camp in the past few years. I’ve always been more hesitant about the things that happen among Pentecostals and Charismatics, but yet I can’t just chuck everything up to emotion and group psychology, etc. There are some genuinely odd and supernatural things that still happen (for whatever reason, through whatever agency) that those who are the most staunchly cessationistic in the Reformed ranks need to come to terms with and not feel as though it’s a challenge to Sola Scriptura. You and Doug are pursing this in a commendable fashion.
Blessings,
Aaron
graham veale says
Can I just reiterate that I am not a cessationist. Can I also make it clear that I did not comment on this until I had received comments from Charismatic and Pentecostal friends who were uniformly shocked by the details of the vision, and the methdology that was being taught for dealing with demons.
This is not a case of culture shock. (1) There is a clear demonstrable challenge to the evangelical doctrine of Scripture. One man has used his own experiences to develop a demonology, and a method for dealing with demons, and he is teaching both to others. (2) I referenced the need to use Church History and Reason to understand and apply Scripture. Pr Driscoll makes no appeal to either (3) Practically, the potential for abuse and harm is obvious and enormous. (4) The appeal for dialogue seems inconsistent given the language that the Reformed community often used to condemn outsiders.
It seems that there is one rule for the Reformed, and another for the rest of the Church.
Graham Veale
graham veale says
The method is available on the download:
http://cdn.marshillchurch.org/files/collection/documents/spiritual-warfare_9080_document.pdf
Now the general teaching that precedes this method is vague, and seems to be a case of word association rather than exegesis. However, there is at least an attempt to root his ideas in Scripture.
However the method for dealing with counsellees that might be oppressed by demons is based exclusively on Pr Driscoll’s experience.
. . .
This is a man-made tradition, albeit one that is only being promoted to a small group of Churches at the moment. However, it seems incredible to me that anyone could contend that Pr Driscoll is serious about Sola Scriptura! (And this is coming from someone who takes the Wesleyan Quadrilateral seriously! Even if Wesley didn’t come up with it…)
Graham Veale
graham veale says
Can I ask that you watch the video in conjunction with the notes, so that we have a clear idea of the issues? My impression is that you have judged this sermon on the short section put on YouTube by Mr Johnson. If anything this is the least problematic part of the sermon.
(Actually, if this is the case, it might explain why you and Pr Wilson are so calm, and I am so worried. The whole sermon needed to be viewed for context.)
Toby says
Graham,
Thanks for your thoughts on all of this. I’m afraid I don’t have time to answer all your questions or interact with all of your comments carefully. However, a few thoughts: First, the main point of this post was just to insist that we follow Biblical protocols of justice. That wasn’t a claim about anyone’s guilt or innocence. It was just a request that we frame our questions or concerns carefully or pursue serious concerns (e.g. regarding sin) judiciously. Second, I did watch the first half of the sermon that the original clip was taken from and I also read through the notes that accompanied that talk. And as I stated in my original post on all this stuff, I did find it strange sounding. But given the broader context, what Driscoll has said on many other fronts, and his track record of respect for Scripture, I want to give him the benefit of the doubt since there was nothing that he said that was blatantly false or necessarily unscriptural. Third, I may agree that the potential for abuse and harm is there, but I can’t address that concern faithfully by acting out of fear of what *might* be true. Driscoll has fellow pastors and elders who are more qualified for that, and I would actually recommend that you try to get in touch with one or more of them if you would like to pursue this further. Again, thanks for your comments.
May the peace of Christ be with you,
Toby
graham veale says
Toby
Thank you for the gracious reply, which I did not deserve given my initial reaction. I’d just like to clarify that I don’t know if Pr Driscoll abuses or doesn’t abuse his position. That is, as you say, a matter for his elders.
However his teaching has been offered to the wider Church to follow. The potential for harm and abuse lies in what others would do with this kind of authority and in how other people would misperceive demonic influences in their lives if they take Pr Driscoll at his word.
This is not “strange” or “unusual” teaching, it is wrong and dangerous, and needs a robust response. I have also made a case that Pr Driscoll has, in theory and in practice, abandoned sola scriptura in one key area of Church life. You cannot follow sola scriptura most of the time. And Pr Driscoll has abandoned sola scriptura in his understanding of spiritual realms
I cannot help but feel that Pr Driscoll is perceived as “one of us” and is therefore immune to criticism that we would pour on an emergent, dispensational or arminian theologian if they made such pronouncements.
Finally, Pr Driscoll’s stories are either true or are complete fabrications.I cannot see how they could be mistakes! If they are true we must all revise our approach to counselling, mental health, and to the sufficiency of Scripture.
Surely we cannot sweep this under the carpet, and pretend this is just like his sermons on Song of Songs, or his cussing. This is not a case of “that Driscoll, what a scamp!”. This is dangerous…not in the context of Pr Driscoll’s own ministry, but in the effect that it would have on the wider Church if it listens to this teaching.
But I have taken up too much of your time. Thank you for your patience, and for forgiving my initial rudeness. God bless you and your Church.
Graham Veale
Hughuenot says
Sir,
You say,
But isn’t he claiming that divinely-inspired images came into his mind?
If MD truly is a seer of sorts, it’s strange that he publicly disclosed very personal & potentially embarrassing info that cannot be verified.
All sides should agree that the identities of the people whose very intimate images Driscoll saw SHOULD not be divulged in a breach of ministerial protocol, privacy, & decency. But then, such is rather convenient, as therefore nothing he claimed to have seen can be verified.
And shouldn’t the images’ lurid nature itself give us pause?