Mark Driscoll's "Sixth Sense" by Peter Lumpkins

When Rob Bell allegedly waffled on the literalness of the biblical doctrine of Hell, The Gospel Coalition, followed by many of the most popular Calvinistic evangelicals ripped him apart for unbiblical nonsense crossing over, at times, in spurning him as a heretic. Yet when bad-boy YRR icon Mark Driscoll makes embarrassing pronouncements about his Spirit-endowed "sixth sense," YRR apologists turn their head >>>

Hence, I'm afraid it falls to our lot to remind the public about the young, restless, and reformed's most popular, influential star. Below is Driscoll's "sixth sense" on full display:

With that, I am...

Peter

*the snippets of Driscoll were taken from the video here

**the snippet from the movie, "Sixth Sense" was taken from the video here

Comments

[Remi]

Driscoll feeds the sexual appetite of carnal/immature Christians, inasmuch as they feel more justified and holy in obsessing over sex with Mark Driscoll because of the false perception that the entire conversation and obsession is "covered by the blood."

It's no surprise that he's so popular with those who struggle a great deal with sex. Instead of helping them overcome their struggle, he encourages it.

[peter lumpkins]

Well, Darren, not necessarily. Though I've not been in on most of this conversation, I possess serious reservations about Driscoll's persona over sexual matters. And, so far as the chat goes concerning SGM and cultism, one must keep in mind, most of the complaints concerning "cultism" stems from the psychological aspect of cults not primarily their doctrinal systems.

Perhaps there is some overlap when we speak about pastoral authority, but nonetheless it seems to me the primary analogy between SGM and cults is more psychological likenesses than anything else. One also must keep in mind that much of the evidence for these charges come from former insiders and present insiders, many of whom are respectable pastors in the SGM.

With that, I am...
Peter

[darren casper]

The repeated talk on here about porn as it relates to Driscoll and cults as it relates to Sovereign Grace ministry is oddly obsessive, highly inappropriate, reckless, and simply un Christian.

[lmalone]

Scott, Here is a link for you:

http://calltorevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/sgm-chronicles-preamble.html?m=1

The latest SGM blog started by a former member and news caster in Charlotte who was active in the Crossway SGM church for 15 years.

You will want to check out sgmsurvivors, too. Four years of posts that will help you understand how cults operate.

[mary]

And let me add the point here that the Calvinists are trying really really hard to distract everybody away from is - how is it anything close to "correct" doctrine for Driscoll to claim that Jesus himself has gifted him with porn-o-vision. When they claim Driscoll is "orthodox" and has "sound doctrine" they are actually agreeing that "sound doctrine" means that Jesus is now giving a man like Driscoll who has shown for years that he has an obsession with sex, but now suddenly Driscoll is gifted with his own personal pornography channel that's not always 100% accurate. Understand these people are agreeing that Jesus has given pornographic visions to Mark Driscoll if Driscoll's doctrine is "correct." But gosh why do people pick on poor Mark Driscoll so much!

[peter lumpkins]

Mary. you are too, too funny.

Grace, ya'll. I hope you have a superb Lord's Day tomorrow.

With that, I am...
Peter

[mary]

lmalone, Peter Lumpkins has correct doctrine but he's never given any kind of pass for all his alleged bad acts. Oh what am I saying? Peter's not a Calvinist! Never mind!

[lmalone]

Btw: The point at SBC voices is that Driscoll has correct doctrine and that is all that really matters. I would remind them that satan knows correct doctrine, too.

[lmalone]

"I think your point should be focused on the problems around the "cult of personality" rather than Calvinism"

The irony in this statement is too much for me. "Calvin" himself was a cult of personality. The fact that one describes the things of God as "Calvinist" is a clue it has gone too far for centuries. I am at a loss why people cannot see the cognative dissonance in that.

How many Free Will people have ever heard of Arminius? Very few, I would imagine. How many Calvinist have heard of Calvin. See my point?

The cult of personality is inherent in your doctrine. That is why so many want to call it something else, now. And I do agree with much Calvin wrote. But overall, there are huge problems with not only the man himself (not a good model) but some of his doctrine. And this New Calvinism is a mish mash that basically teaches that even after salvation/Justification you are a totally depraved worm. Where is the hope in being a New Creation in Christ? If Driscoll is a model for a New Creation in Christ to so many people, we are in big trouble.

Driscoll is a bully. He speaks harsh language, insults people and mocks our Lord and his manly men stuff is a constant theme he cannot let go of. Most men who are real manly men don't have to talk about it all the time and make it a focus of their ministry. They just "are". That should be a warning sign to people that he is a bully and a coward...and not a REAL manly man. He doth protest too much.

And yes, sex is in the Bible and we know Jesus talked about it constantly. Right?

But we are a culture that buys into words and images. We buy into the branding that goes on Christianity. Driscoll is a brand. And he appeals to the flesh.

[Max]

Peter, the reason YRR neck hair stands on end at the very mention of your name is that you "see things". I fully expect that Driscoll's carnality will cause his message and method to drift too far south ... at that point, watch the "Yeah Buts" quickly put him at a distance as they have done with Rob Bell in recent days.

[peter lumpkins]

Mary,

I wish I did not have to agree with you. Alas, however, I must. It seems the mere mention of my name is anathama to some of these guys. One told me in a telephone conservation that I was ungodly and a disgrace to Southern Baptists...that I possessed a heart problem. He also accused me of twisting his words beyond recognition. I asked him to produce the mangled mess I allegedly concocted. He said he'd email it in a "couple of days". That was in May. He must have forgotten I suppose.

The problem facing bloggers presently in Baptist circles is mainly credibility. So many of them understand neither proper sourcing nor what constitutes legitimate and illegitimate inferences from the sources they cite. Hence, it's very easy to show their points not well taken. When one does, many get angry and start popping off with their emotions rather than their brains. After a few exchanges, and their nose has been honked repeatedly, there's no going back. Pride is too precious a commodity for most of us to deny, I'm afraid.

Grace, Mary.
With that, I am...
Peter

[mary]

Eric, I think I didn't make myself clear since the point has been made here over and over and I assume everybody has the same understanding.

There is a virulent rabid strain of Calvinism within the SBC. It is these Calvinists, what some call neo Calvinists that we speak of here. Now obviously not all Calvinists will defend Calvinism at any costs, but there are enough of them that someone like Mark Driscoll has way too much influence in the SBC and there is no one holding him accountable. So it's the "cult of personality" that has been developed in what seems to be a large segment of the YRR. Calvinism didn't cause "the cult" but it is dominant among the Calvinists in the SBC. You don't have to go far here on Peter's blog to see how Calvinists will go through semantical hoops to defend anything ever said about a Calvinist.

I don't know if I'm making myself clear. There's a problem within the SBC with the YRR, part of it is their insistence on their idols such as a Driscoll and Maheny, or the looking the other way when Al Mohler hires only Calvinists at Southern while squealing like pigs because an autonomous association chose not to associate with an Acts 29 church.

Of course all mankind has issues and any group of people anywhere will have problems associated with sin. Here at Peter's blog we talk a lot about the problems being caused by rabid Calvinists in the SBC. We don't have tourettes and sputter "Calvinist" uncontrollbly. Many us have full lives and the only time Calvinism is brought into is time spend on a blog.

Now if you don's see a connection that's fine. Many of us have been at this for years and have watched the disturbing behavior get excused over and over while a Caner can tweet something and the blogosphere erupts with calls for his head.

You can call people obsessed because of the little time they spend talking about a subject on a blog when you know nothing about how they spend the rest of their time
if you choose. I'm pretty confident the conversation will continue despite the name calling.

[Eric Opsahl]

Mary,
My impression with your last statement is that you are characterizing Calvinist as acting differently than any other group.

There are many examples of men (from all different camps) acting sinfully, only to be propped up by their peers.

We have thousands of years of history to back up my point. You could insert Baptist, Methodist, Seeker Friendly, etc. into your statement and it would apply just as equally. This simply has nothing to do with Calvinism.

I think your point should be focused on the problems around the "cult of personality" rather than Calvinism.

I know some folks who are on this site have been around long enough to have heard of other groups ignoring problems within its own group. This is a problem affecting all mankind not just Calvinist.

Food for thought.

[mary]

Eric, Calvinism is connected because if Mark Driscoll were not a Calvinist we'd a done forget his name because the bus would have run over him so long ago. This issue points to the very real fact that Calvinists can behave as badly as they want and there are those who will ignore and outright defend the indefensible. As long as a Calvinist is doing it, it's aok!

[Eric Opsahl]

I get the impression that some folks are obsessed with Calvinism.

For instance, this issue with Driscoll has nothing to do with Calvinism, anymore that that preacher who was caught having relations with the gay has anything to do with seeker friendly Churches.

It's very irrational, unless folks are simply obsessed with tearing down "Calvinism".

[Mary]

Well, Peter, it looks like somebody decided to launch little passive aggressive attack against you with his "I heart Driscoll" post without actually reading what's been written or watching the video evidence for themselves - thus the protestations of I didn't see that video, did he really say that?

It's ok Driscoll is a Calvinist therefore can claim Jesus has gifted him with his very own special pornography channel that sometimes isn't accurate, but poor Mark has to endure vivid images of illicit cheap hotel trysts and violent sex acts against children and find time to preach the Gospel while describing his wife in crude sexual terms in public.

[lmalone]

Peter, this is because they remain totally depraved AFTER salvation. Sin is really not a big deal...it is expected and only certain people can define what is sinful, anyway. They weigh it. Driscoll says some right things so that counts for more than the vulgarity, Nicolatian behavior and obession with sex which should be a wake up call to what really lurks underneath. It is the get out of jail card.

And there you have the outcome of the Neo Calvinism.

[Mary]

Ok Peter here's the problem you posted videos of Mark Driscoll that the Calvinists would like everyone to ignore! You were supposed to post the acceptable videos so people could here Driscoll in his own words not hear Driscoll in his own words from the video the Calvinists want to distract everybody from. Driscill in his own words means the words certain people like not Driscolls words that they can't deal with! Besides John Piper likes him you you antiCalvinist you!

[Mary]

Calvinists MO is to attack and distract when faced with facts they cannot deal with.

[Mary]

Peter, there is evidence of a disease called "Lumpkins Derangement Sydrome" here. Whatever Peter says we must disagree with no matter what it does to our witness and crediability.

Someone should notify the porn industry because according to this latest defense of Driscoll you can be as crude and nasty, as depraved as you want in your speech but as long as you get the Gospel in there somewhere you're an upstanding citizen not to be critized. After all there is a whole culture of people who can be reached through porn. We just have to put that Gospel in there. Driscoll's degrading and sexist comments against women(his own wife) mean nothing so who cares what's happening in a porn film? Driscoll claims that Jesus gives him "visions" of a sexually violent nature, but hey he preached the Gospel so what's your problem? Argue cessasionism/continuism, but somehow point out that even if Jesus is giving you visions, visions with sexual violence are probably not from God, but hey he's Mark Driscoll he's special so maybe God had to reach Mark in a special way at Mark's level. Porns with a Gospel message! We have to reach the world after all! Gotta get them sinners where they are!

Calvinism will be defended at all cost.

Peter Lumpkins will be made to look like a villian no matter what evidence he provides to back up his views. Gee Peter, I guess you don't get the same consideration as Driscoll cuz you just don't get down in the gutter enough to spread the Gospel. It's amazing the double standard, some people have excuses made for them no matter what, but oh wait not "some" people - Calvinists will be excused no matter the behavior and nonCalvinists will be attacked as everything but a mother's son, but certainly not a Christian brother who has a right to a "voice" especially when your "voice" isn't towing the party line.

[peter lumpkins]

All

The boys at Voices apparently think by posting videos of Driscoll containing acceptable content washes away the stains of his unevangelical, unacceptable, unbiblical verbiage found on the videos linked here. Is this not precisely what Driscoll, YRR advocates perpetually churn out? Do they not promote ignoring Driscoll’s theological flaws by vigorously focusing on Driscoll’s more acceptable contributions?  That’s the conundrum one creates for one’s self when attempting to cater to all parties. In short, standing for all reduces to standing for none.

Also, when we offer specific criticisms here—so far as the criticisms I myself express—nothing is necessarily implied about other aspects of a person’s belief structure (unless, of course, if the implication is either teased out by the author (i.e. me) or shown to be a “good and necessary” inference pointed out by another). Hence, the redundant recording of a disclaimer every time one logs a criticism becomes literarily nauseating. For example, the Voices boys specifically suggest they "don't like" all Driscoll's beliefs/behavior, but notice the inevitable "BUT" at the end... '

“I don’t like everything Mark Driscoll says…BUT…

“I might still want to wash his mouth out with soap sometimes, BUT

“I thought some of the things he has said were over the line, BUT

“here may be legitimate questions about his approach and his vocabulary, BUT

“He is WAY more frank than I would be addressing the same subject in Sioux City.  BUT

“This video is strongly worded in places – BUT

“I agree with some of them [critics].  BUT

Can we not see not only the literary redundancy here but also the complete washing out of any criticism whatsoever. This is simply another way to offer a get-out-of-jail-free card. In short, one might as well agree with everything said when so much effort is expended in washing any reservations one might have right down the drain.

With that, I am…

Peter        

[Max]

After a too close encounter with the YRR movement in my area, I found that the fascination with Driscoll is that he "unpacks" a message which blends Calvinism with worldliness ... a popular and hip delivery that encourages his followers to drag as much world into their lives as they can and still be Christian. His Leno-type delivery and scaled-down holiness message draws a crowd, prompting more laughter than Amens. While one might find a glimmer of truth occasionally in his message, his methodology is disturbing. Why would a preacher of the Gospel resort to such tactics to attract a following? It's working for him!

[lmalone]

Scott, I do not know how old you are so you might not have a good understanding of what the Shepherding movement was really all about. Some of us remember it starting with the Jesus Movement. Without that understanding it is hard to recognize it...in fact, the words sound great, sincere and biblical. What is the problem is method which is anything but biblical. In fact, it has the spirit of the Nicolatians all over it.

If you read the survivor blogs you see the shepherding method all over it. And most of them had no clue until it was too late.

That is why it is hard for outsiders to understand what a huge deal it was for CJ to attend Dever's church when he stepped down to "contemplate his sin". Did you know that historically SGM pastors who had to step down to contemplate their sin were made to attend SGM churches? Many times the same church they pastored while they were in a "season of discipline". And the 'sin' was often things such as a vague "spirit of pride" or "unentreatability" or some other sgmese problem. Very cult like tactics of controlling people.

But this hard and fast rule did not apply to CJ and it stunned everyone because it has been his own "method" for many years.

You might want to study cult tactics, too.

[lmalone]

http://larrytomczak.com/Docs/departure_sgm.pdf

Larry finally speaks out and tells his side of the PDI/SGM story.

"At a minimum, if CJ Mahaney is a "cult leader" and Mark Driscoll is a "false teacher," then they are not Christians and are currently under the wrath of God."

Scott, the facts are out there for anyone to see if they take the time. What you think about them is up to you. My advice to people is to stop promoting men instead of Jesus. Too much cult of personality in Christianity.

[mary]

Scott, if it walks like a duck etc...

So since you didn't answer the points made you must agree that Driscoll's porn channel from Jesus is not a false teaching and all the evidence from Mahaney doesn't point to cultic practices in SGM. That's fine embrace it if that's what you believe. I happen to think there's evidence that these men are dangerous and the SBC should have nothing to do with any of these ministries. As to who's under the wrath of God that's not for me to decide, but we can and should point out those who are clearly abusing authority that they claim from God and those who are pushing false teaching. Let's not play the distraction game.

[Scott]

"Cult leader" and "false teacher" carry connotations that have to do with the eternal destiny of the person who is being labeled. It also suggests that the people who are in their churches are blind sheep whose eternal destinies are in question if they believe the doctrine of those who are teaching them. So I point out these terms because they are loaded. If the issue here were merely Calvinism, I honestly would not care. What we do have are labels that carry with them some serious implications. At a minimum, if CJ Mahaney is a "cult leader" and Mark Driscoll is a "false teacher," then they are not Christians and are currently under the wrath of God.
The reason that I addressed Peter in my comment is that he typically interacts with the arguments and reasoning of commenters. He has a knack for picking up the nuances of a person's argument and responding to it. That is why it surprised me when Peter has not responded to these particular comments.

[lmalone]

"Not talking about censoring. I'm talking about not challenging them"

Sorry Scott, my bad. Those concepts, to me, tend to be interchangable on most Calvinist leaning blogs I have visted.

Scott, just curious, do you see Mohler partnering with the "Apostle" from the "People of Destiny"? He would be laughed out of the SBC. However, the only thing CJ did was rebrand himself and his followers into SGM. It worked. The methods are still the same as the shepherding cults. In fact, systematically, victims of sexual molestation were counseled by SGM pastors to NOT call the authorities but to let the leaders handle it. They were also told that discussing it with anyone else at all would be the sin of gossip. That is cult, friend.

[peter lumpkins]

Darren,

That's a fair question. My own position stems from an influential essay written years ago by NT scholar Robert Saucy (DTS) which made an impact upon my thinking. For Saucy, he developed what he dubbed an "open but cautious" view on the charismata. I hold to something like that view. Personally I do not find where the sign gifts in the NT are definitively abandoned. Even so, not everything we find today purported to be "supernatural" should be naively accepted, especially the looney-toon nonsense Driscoll embraces about "discernment". There's not one iota of evidence the gift of "discernment" as he describes his own experience is latent in the NT idea of discernment--nothing. Pure extra-biblical verbal clabber.

With that, I am...
Peter

[mary]

Eric, maybe you didn't see the video in the other thread? I just watched this one which I think "I see things" is pretty clear and he's describing the things he sees. In the other video he actually makes it out like he's watching a TV in his "visions"

[mary]

Eric, he's drawing a TV screen claiming that he sees the acts of sexual violence like on a TV screen. Maybe you take acception to my calling it his own pornography channel. I'm not sure what you call watching sexual violence against women and children on a TV screen if not pornography.

[Eric Opsahl]

Mary,
I missed the part in the video where Driscoll claims what you state:

"he claims that Jesus has gifted him with his very own personal pornography channel to use with his "gift" of discernment in counseling with scenes of violent sexual acts?"

That's not biblical and everyone should be concerned...

[mary]

Scott, since you have a problem with CJ Mahaney being called a cult leader you must disagree that the over 800 pages of evidence of CJ's abuses are what lies, not cultic - there's a survivors network for those people and you think poor wittle CJ's somehow getting a bad rap even though he has "removed" himself from authority because of all the evidence of his abuses in authority. The stuff he himself has admitted to doesn't rise to level of cultic nor all the victims testimony?

You must think Scott, that Jesus gives certain people their very own pornorgraphy channel of not just sexual violence against women but sexual violence against children. That's not false teaching? You must think that the pornography channel that Jesus gives as a gift to Mark Driscoll somehow has some reception problems because Driscoll admits it's not 100% accurate. That's not a false teaching?

Let's ignore the utter nonsense in defending Mahaney and Driscoll, tell me Scott do you hold all blogs to your standard you want to hold Peter too? Cause that would sure be a lots of fun! Of course we know the answer is no only those exposing the Calvinists are to be attacked with any means necessary.

Calvinism will be defended at all costs.

[Scott]

Not talking about censoring. I'm talking about not challenging them.

[lmalone]

Scott, I am glad Peter does not censor such things. You are talking about me.

I am shocked you do not think SGM is cultish or even a bonafide cult. It was "people of destiny" with "Apostles" just a few years back and comes from the Shepherding movement and still uses the same tactics although now claiming reformed with prophecy mics. Read the last 4 years of sgmsurvivors blog if you still do not get it. You might have also missed the part where CJ blackmailed his former partner Larry, using Larry's son's confessions, to get rid of him.

The way Driscoll describes God in the Flesh and mocks Him with his brand of vulgarity is blasphemous "to me". How is that? Only thinking of Isaiah 6....

[Scott]

That first word should be "since." got to love autocorrect.

[Scott]

Peter,
Dice commenters on your site have referred to Driscoll as a false teacher and Mahaney as a cult leader and have not been corrected, should we assume that you agree with their assessment?

[darren casper]

I'm not here to defend Mark Driscoll or even speak to his personal experiences, but I am curious Peter what your personal position is with regards to, not only dreams and visions, but the revelatory gifts of the Spirit such as tongues and prophecy. Would you describe your position as one of cessation?

Do you believe its possible that people in this day will or could have authentic dreams and visions given by the Lord?

And do you like many in our family hold that tongues and prophecy ceased with the apostles and thus anyone today who speaks in tongues is either in the flesh or being inspired by the demonic?

I find a lot of good of information on your site and am just curious about your positions in these areas. You certainly do your homework!

Thanks

[Ron Hale]

The following is Driscoll's encounter with the man that didn't know he had been sexually abused as a one year old child:

"Uh, like I was meeting with one person and they—they didn’t know this, but they were abused when they were a child. And I said, “When you were a child you were abused. This person did this to you, physically touched you this way.” He said, “How do you know?” I said, “I don’t know. It’s like I got a TV right here. I’m seeing it.” He said, “No that never happened.” I said, “Go ask him. Go ask him if they actually did what I think they did and I see that they did.” They went and asked this person, “When I was a little kid did you do this?” And the person said, “Yeah, but you were only like a year or two old. How do you remember that?” He said, “Well, pastor Mark told me.”

(First) I would encourage Mar's Hill Church to up their insurance on their pastor's counseling -- big potential for lawsuits here. Saying "Well, pastor Mark told me" may not hold up in court when a person is bringing charges against another person.

(Second) I don't read in the Book of Acts where the Apostles had inner T.V. sets they could look into and see bad things happening?

(Third) Dr. Akin has a big blind spot here!

[Rick Patrick]

Let's join Mark out on his limb for a moment and agree, for the sake of argument, that God has gifted him with the ability to see these visions of violent spousal abuse taking place in the private homes of people whose names and addresses he knows.

Does Mark Driscoll not have a responsibility to report such abuse to local law enforcement officials as soon as possible? Perhaps he can fast forward his visions like Nicholas Cage in "Next," preventing these crimes from happening in the first place rather than merely picking up the pieces afterward.

If you were able to see such things, would you report them? Remember Mark, with great power comes great responsibility.

[Mary]

Let's see we're supposed to believe that Peter Pan Driscoll is being "biblical" when he claims that Jesus has gifted him with his very own personal pornography channel to use with his "gift" of discernment in counseling with scenes of violent sexual acts? But oh Jesus gives him these visions personally but Jesus is not giving him visions that are 100% accurate? Somehow Jesus cannot get a message to Driscoll to aid in his counseling that doesn't involve pornography and violent sex? Jesus couldn't just give ol Mark the impression that something happened, had to actually show him in color on Mark's personal TV scene? Mark Driscoll a man known to be obsessed with sex is gifted with his own pornography channel by Jesus? Oh and we're to believe that Mark is so talented that when he identifies victims they can go confront the perpetrators and the pertrators just fess up, no denials, just oh Mark's got me gosh darn it!

Now I wonder how many of the Calvinists who are alledgely disturbed by Driscoll but appreciate his ministry too much to speak up do to the same when Calvnists vultures go after a nonCalvinist who messes up? Do Calvinists appreciate what those ministers have done and remain silent? Oh what am I saying nonCalvinists minister can't have any kind of ministry to be appreciated if your YRR!

[lmalone]

"Of course, we don't need to worry about copyright infringement of movies, since we're using them to make a point. We all have flaws. God shows grace and charity. So should we. "

Andy, there are quite a few resources out there to study up on internet copyright issues. Peter is right.

But I am always a bit amused at this charge thrown out. These celebs spend a lot of time and energy on getting their face in front of people. But when it is used to analyze their teaching, they go nuts...or their followers try the tired copyright infringement spiel.

[lmalone]

"Many in the YRR movement recognize the issues with Driscoll, but out of appreciation for the positive aspects of his ministry defend him when he is attacked by those who may not appreciate his ministry in the same way"

This thinking always amuses me except that it is so sad. Just how do you seperate his bizarre teaching on divinations and his bad boy behavior with his teaching? What can be positive in a ministry like that? It is a movement that appeals to the fleshg. You can hear that clearly in most of his sermons if you are able.

I guess as long as Driscoll can delete his words (and some bizarre teaching) off the internet when they come back to bite him, all will be ok? (That is classic Driscoll, btw. Been doing it for years) More and more are on to him and taking screen shots. Although some of it was taken down the same day. Interesting. Perhaps Piper called?

I have been following Driscoll since he was Donald Miller's "cussing pastor". He is a time bomb waiting to go off. He has thrown quite a few grenades many have chosen to ignore because he is "reformed". But mark my works, he will blow. I know that recently he is trying to upgrade his image. One cannot wear puca shells and mickey mouse tshirts after 40 and expect to be taken seriously. But this image upgrade does not change the many neon warning signs of his abusive tendancies. He is a blasphemer and false teacher concerning our Lord. And he is totally obsessed with sex...even to the point his followers claim this is a good thing because they are so besotted. (Tell that to Richard Wurmbrand)

It is all flesh.

Leaders align themselves with Driscoll at their own risk. But my guess is that since Neo Calvinism believes born again people REMAIN totally depraved, Driscoll will always get a pass as long as he brings in the numbers. And large numbers don't always mean truth. Sometimes it is simply a movement...a fad.

[peter lumpkins]

Dear Griffin,

None of those you mentioned is necessarily a YRR advocate. Hope that helps, sir.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Griffin]

Turn their head? Have you ever read Pyromaniacs? Michael Horton? HereIBlog? Heads were not turned, sir.

[peter lumpkins]

"...we don't need to worry about copyright infringement of movies, since we're using them to make a point"

Why some of the YRR sympathizers cannot hold their tongue but go right on popping off without first thinking about what they're suggesting reflects nicely the incredulity many have toward their community as a whole.

For example, our Andy completely ignores Driscoll's embarrassing charismania circus sideshow all the while trying to lay a copyright infringement on me. It apparently doesn't occur to him he proved my lament true that, in my words above, "YRR apologists turn their head" to Driscoll's shenanigans. Andy did just that by blowing smoke in my direction.

More importantly--at least so far as Andy's implicating me with literary theft--neither did it occur to him that copyright infringement does not prohibit any use of material but unfair use of material.Indeed fair usage of material includes usage for illustrative, critical, evaluative, and/or educational purposes, precisely the use I employed with the 8 second clip.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Eric Opsahl]

What did he say that was unbiblical?

I don't know of scripture or scriptural principles that would prohibit a pastor from having the visions he described.

He is either telling the truth, a liar, or influenced by demons?

I'm personally skeptical, suppose I would want to see what fruit comes out of it.

For instance, its clear to see the kind of fruit someone such as benny Hinn produces.

[Max]

It was interesting to watch the YRR in my area start distancing themselves from Rob Bell in social network chatter as it became apparent that Bell's current teaching thread approaches heresy. These same young pastors in the not too distant past were promoting Bell's books and Nooma videos in their churches. You can now find these "ministry" resources in yard sales all over my area, as you will Driscoll, Piper, and Keller books when resurgent goes the way of emergent. We desperately need a new measure of wisdom and discernment in SBC ranks these days.

[Scott]

I've actually seen a lot of guys who would consider themselves part of the YRR movement express consternation over this clip. There's not a blog post that I could point you to. It's more my observation from Twitter and personal conversations.
Many in the YRR movement recognize the issues with Driscoll, but out of appreciation for the positive aspects of his ministry defend him when he is attacked by those who may not appreciate his ministry in the same way.

[boB Cleveland]

I'm reminded of Joseph Garlington's statement that "Some folks think that, if it hasn't happened to me, it hasn't happened".

[Andy]

Of course, we don't need to worry about copyright infringement of movies, since we're using them to make a point. We all have flaws. God shows grace and charity. So should we.