So much for the seatbelt…


Mark Driscoll has described himself as “a Charismatic with a seatbelt on” in order to distance himself from the craziness sometimes associated with Charismaticism (I’d probably debate the use of sometimes there). Phil Johnson has a post today that pretty clear shows that Mark seems to be driving sans seatbelt. Phil makes a passing reference to Jack Deere’s book in his post and I’d add that Driscoll is advocating here the kind of thing that Deere promoted quite heavily as a word of knowledge with the unique twist of living color TV screens.

I appreciated the fact that Phil extended his concerns to the toleration, almost fascination, of these things by some well known evangelicals. While sympathetic to their desire to see God active and working for His glory in our day, it is a dangerous thing to neglect the warnings in the NT about satanic manipulation. Perhaps he does it somewhere else in the larger video, but Driscoll does not say anything about testing the spirits to see if they are from God (1 John 4:1). The fact that he admits that he isn’t always right joined to the presumption that it is Jesus who is telling or showing him these things is alarming. Certainly Jesus is never wrong, so where did the wrong vision come from?

Beyond that, if we even need to go beyond that, if you’re wrongly accusing people of molesting their grandkids or of committing adultery, that is a sin against both God and man. You’ve falsely represented God and you’ve dropped a bomb on innocent people.

One last word (of a non-prophetic sort), I find it very odd that Driscoll is pinning current spiritual problems on actions that happened to infants of which they have no memory. He seems to draw a causal connection to what happened in his vision and their current struggles, as well as finding the solution in confronting someone based on the vision. I find that odd both for its psychologized view of sancification and that Driscoll has been a keynote speaker for CCEF, an organization that I would think (hope) takes a different view than this. Of course, Driscoll was probably there to draw a crowd, so maybe they weren’t concerned about his counseling theory and methods.

Comments are closed.