Pastor Mark Driscoll: Non-Christians Aren’t Stupid, They’re Blind

Friends, what keeps us from this is another form of blindness. And what I love about the Bible is that the Bible will takephysical truths and use them to teach spiritual truths. The same God who rules over the physical world rules over the spiritual world. So, the Bible often uses the analogy that sin is like blindness, that sin is like blindness. Paul says to the Corinthians is one example. There are many in the Old and New Testament, “The god of this world has” — what? — “blinded the minds of unbelievers so they don’t see the glory of God in Christ.” See, non-Christians are not stupid; they are blind. Yelling at them won’t make them see, hating them won’t make them see. Telling them, “It’s obvious. Do you not see it?” “I am blind. No, I don’t.”Now, you just seem mean and cruel. Since I have always been blind, I don’t even know what you’re talking about, to have sight. Does this explain some of your frustration with non-Christian family, co-workers, friends? “Jesus is God! How come you can’t see that?” “I don’t.” So, we need to pray for a miracle of God where Jesus touches them and opens their spiritual eyes, just as He has opened our spiritual eyes.

Pastor Mark Driscoll, “Non-Christians Aren’t Stupid, They’re Blind” (2011)

Pastor Mark Driscoll in this particular clip from the Mars Hill era more or less reflects the use of the invention of a concept to inure a rival philosophical stance. What is a nonbeliever? What is an atheist? Some who rejects Christ as God. Simple: They’re blind. They miss a God-sense.

You are superior. You have that which they do not. Only if they would humble themselves to accept this profound gift of God. But they’re not stupid, though Bible calls them “fools.”

They’re filled with sin, evil, and, therefore, blind. Do you see the unfairness in this formulation of argument? Invert it: The Christian is filled with supernatural ignorance, ‘sin’ if you will.

They’re unable to see the truths of scientific naturalism. They’re simply blind and cannot see. It’s pseudoepistemological arrogance posing as epistemology. It’s not even an argument; it’s an insult, to the Christian. If Driscoll, in fact, believes this, he believes his audience is stupid. He’s intelligent enough to make epistemological distinctions. He continues:

Sin is like blindness. Number one, it is an incurable condition. This man’s condition was incurable; he needed a miracle. Our sin condition is incurable, and we need Jesus to do a miracle. Number two, sin blinds us so that we don’t see God clearly. We don’t know Him rightly, particularly about Jesus. Had you, for example, asked me prior to Jesus opening my blind eyes at the age of 19, “What do you think about Jesus? He’s a nice guy. He told nice stories, helped somepeople, fed the poor.”

“Is he God?”

“I don’t see that.”

“Is he Lord?”

“I don’t see that.”

“Is he coming again to judge the living and the dead?”

“I don’t see that.”

“Should he tell you what to do? I definitely don’t see that.”

What is this long stretch of sophistry? Again, the entire premise is blindness based on the assertion of the Christian being able to see that which the atheist or the nonbeliever cannot see. Remembering, God pursues people.

Therefore, this is an act of will against the Will of God. The derivative must be purported arrogance and pride on the part of the nonbeliever. Yet, once more, it’s bound to the proud assertion of a non-epistemology in having a means of analogical sight for the theological realities of world.

Even further, he asserts another premise onto this. The condition is something incurable and, therefore, something of which the individual believer can touch and attain forgiveness of sins to give them a sight while the nonbelievers is unable to do so: They have not accepted Jesus Christ — Lord and Saviour — as their King of Kings.

Driscoll may be playing the role of giving his own testimony. However, we cannot ascertain this as any further proof tothe divinity of Mohammed. Let’s call this the divine neutrality principle, testimonies can be used to attest to any divinity. Therefore, the divinity of any particular deity or holy figure cannot be considered as such as a matter of principle when mutually exclusive, so rejecting all divinities becomes more reasonable as a result. But Driscoll bleeds on:

I didn’t see Jesus for who he was. When we’re spiritually blind, we don’t have the ability to cure an incurable condition. We don’t see God and Christ for who He is. Number two, we don’t see ourselves for who we are. We don’t. We don’t see ourselves for who we are. Some of you think, “I am a really good person.” You don’t see yourself. Some of you would say, “Oh, I see myself. I see how sinful, broken, damaged goods, I am.” But if you don’t have any hope, you don’t have any joy. You don’t have any Christ. You don’t have any sight. People tend to see themselves as not needing a Savior or either being beyond salvation. One leads to pride, the other leads to despair, neither lead to Jesus. We don’t see ourselves. You are not damaged goods. You are not beyond hope. You are not broken irreparably. You are not beyond the grace of God. How do we look at blind Bart? There is hope for him apart from Christ. But in Christ, there is hope for him.With blind Bart, there is no hope in him. In Christ, there is hope for him. You and I, exactly the same. There is no hope in us, but in Christ; there is hope for us. So, we could see ourselves and see our sin and be honest and be repentant and come clean and tell the story. The story is, we’re the villain. He‘;’s the hero. It was a total wreck. He showed up. I love Jesus. Thirdly categorically, but fourthly in my point, we don’t see, we don’t see others clearly because of sin. Some of you look at people. “They are beyond hope. They are beyond help. I do not know what to do for them. I do not know what to do with them.” Once our eyes are opened, spiritually, we see people as Christ sees them. Ah, they are blind and they need Jesus. They need the power of God. That’s what they need. It gives us a heart of compassion because we remember I was blind too. Without Jesus, I would be as blind as they are. So, I am not angry with them. I am brokenhearted for them. If I am going to talk to them about one thing, it is going to be Jesus.

Occam’s razor or the principle of parsimony can, probably, deal with most angles of this particular line of argumentation.Here’s how: Is it simpler to argue for extra principles in the universe and of supernaturality to prevent others from seeing Christ as God, or simply that others disagree with the basic tenets of the Christian faith? You see the point. His sophistry runs on, and on, and on, and can get a bit tiresome. It’s also late now. Regardless, it’s not that people are or are not beyond hope in their potential for believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, but rather, the vast majority of the people on the Earth disagree with the premise of Jesus Christ as Lord of Lords.