The Angel Wing — a nickname given to the two merging galaxies in the VV-689 system –NASA Hubble
“Is it not enough to know the evil to shun it? If not, we should be sincere enough to admit that we love evil too well to give it up.” -Mahatma Gandhi
Our second post is going to be short. We will post a strange video and allow you all to comment on it. Todd and I have some ideas, but we want to hear what you say. It will go up a few hours after this one.
I want to thank Julie Roys for doing what many have long suspected. John MacArthur believes that women who are being abused should stay with their husbands to “win them over” for Christ. Even more disturbing, he shows precious little concern for the children the father may abuse. Even then, the wife, with the children, must stay with the husband.
Why does MacArthur believe this? That will be a topic of discussion by many psychiatrists and psychologists in the years to come. I’m going to propose one thought. He is an old man who is a wooden, biblical literalist. Some people from that era had low views on how one should respond to apparent abuse.
Sixty years ago, there was a family that had several daughters. It was rumored and suspected that the father was molesting all of them. I have tried to track down those who knew about this and ask why they didn’t do anything to help the daughters. I believed that the father was molesting them. Here are some of the responses.
- We don’t talk about things like that.
- We could get sued for saying anything.
- No one was there when it was happening.
- This sort of thing is accepted in immigrant families.
- I like the father. He seems like a nice man, so that the kids may be making this up.
When I asked why they didn’t do anything to help the daughters, the responses were varied, but most implied.
It wasn’t my problem.
The people I interviewed were primarily Catholic or did not attend church.
So was there a code of silence surrounding the abuse of children and women (and, more rarely, men?)
Why do Christians, who supposedly know the Bible, treat women and children with dangerous disdain? Here are some of my thoughts, and I look forward to hearing yours.
- A wooden literalist interpretation of the Bible leads men to believe in a system of patriarchy in which women cause problems by not obeying their husbands.
- A belief that a confession of wrongdoing and seeming repentance can lead to automatic forgiveness. The abuser then must be treated as having a clean slate because God forgives them.
- Could MacArthur believe that any man who attends his church must be “good?
- Could MacArthur believe that his teaching and role modeling are so good it automatically means that the man couldn’t have done it?
- Is MacArthur uncomfortable around women?
- Could there be abuse in MacArthur’s family that has never been dealt with?
I am convinced that there is a severe flaw in MacArthur’s theology that leads him to act poorly in the following posts by Julie Roys. They are worth your time.
These posts have led me never to remain quiet when anyone tries to convince me that John MacArthur’s teaching represents the height of theological reasoning. It cannot since it led to this.
- EXCLUSIVE: John MacArthur Shamed, Excommunicated Mother for Refusing to Take Back Child Abuser
- EXCLUSIVE: John MacArthur’s Church Supported Convicted Child Abuser & Pedophile, Records Show
- EXCLUSIVE: John MacArthur Covered Up Pastor’s Sexual Abuse, Witnesses Say
- John MacArthur’s Church Failed to Report Kidnapper & Child Molester for Two Years
Final thought
A dear friend of mine asked me a question that took me all of one second to say “No.” His group was about to embark on a study of a Ravi Zacharias book. It was at the beginning of the mess in which daily, horrible revelations were forthcoming. Anyone dying of cancer and still contacting women via social media is desperately lost.
He listened and immediately stopped the group from using that book. The work of Zacharias should be burned since he was not trustworthy, and one may safely assume much of what he taught was not reliable.
I now believe the same thing should be said of MacArthur. He is not reliable, and his thinking can lead to dangerous conclusions that affect the lives of women and children. Try to convince me otherwise.
Very sad state of affairs in McArthur’s church, teaching, and life.
But I am very glad that his abusive system is being exposed for what it is. Only sorry it took so long to crack that nut. It needed to be smashed long before this.
There are plenty more “issues” with Johny Mac that disqualifies him in my opinion…. I think his view on science, and scientific progress is abusive to anyone that has has a career that is highly scientifically grounded.. Johny Mac’s teachings for e one to partition one’s life, if that all try to take their career and his teachings deeply..
“Why do Christians, who supposedly know the Bible, treat women and children with dangerous disdain? Here are some of my thoughts, and I look forward to hearing yours.
A wooden literalist interpretation of the Bible leads men to believe in a system of patriarchy in which women cause problems by not obeying their husbands.
A belief that a confession of wrongdoing and seeming repentance can lead to automatic forgiveness. The abuser then must be treated as having a clean slate because God forgives them.
Could MacArthur believe that any man who attends his church must be “good?
Could MacArthur believe that his teaching and role modeling are so good it automatically means that the man couldn’t have done it?
Is MacArthur uncomfortable around women?
Could there be abuse in MacArthur’s family that has never been dealt with?”
All of the above – absolutely.
But how can someone who has made millions of dollars trafficking Christ possible be wrong?
(/sarcasm)
Jeffrey Chalmers,
typo..
… teaching force one to partition one’s life… if they at all try to take their career and his teachings deeply..
15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains.18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.
Philippians 1:15-18
Jeffrey Chalmers,
Are other trained scientists who disagree with your conclusions on scientific matters being abusive or restrictive?
I could never listen to John MacArthur on the radio through the years. He always came across as so angry to me, to the point that I felt uncomfortable and turned the radio off. Others could not understand what I was sensing. I had the privilege of working with his dad for over a year decades ago. He was reserved in the pulpit, while with his staff he was always helpful and kind. John Sr. (“Jack”) was careful to leave the door open when he met with women, and there was always a secretary nearby. I never understood why his son was such a jerk.
I find I agree with you.
Would you please explain what you mean?
Jeremy,
How Important Is Genesis 1-3?
Articles Genesis 1:1–3:22 A176 Aug 27, 2009
by John MacArthur
I’m convinced the opening chapters of Genesis are not optional. They establish the vital foundation for everything we believe as Christians.
Sadly, it is a foundation that is being systematically undermined by the very institutions that should be most vigorously defending it. More and more Christian educational institutions, apologists, and theologians are abandoning faith in the literal truth of Genesis 1-3.
I recall reading a survey a few years ago which revealed that in one of America’s leading evangelical accrediting associations, whose membership boasted scores of evangelical Bible colleges and universities, only five or six college-level schools remain solidly opposed to the old-earth view of creation. The rest are open to a reinterpretation of Genesis 1-3 that accommodates evolutionary theories.
Scores of well-known Bible teachers and apologists see the whole question as moot, and some even aggressively argue that a literal approach to Genesis is detrimental to the credibility of Christianity. They have given up the battle—or worse, joined the attack against biblical creationism.
Jeffrey J Chalmers,
https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A176/how-important-is-genesis-13
His age leads me to believe there might be a “retirement“ imminent from parts of visible duties if this and other items become more high profile.
It’s hubris all the way down.
Dee,
My question is seeking clarification on this point, MacArthur holds to a different view for you on an unspecified point and you stated that you finds his views on science to be abusive. I know that science is rooted in debate and disagreement and my question was whether it was simply MacArthur’s views ( not a trained scientist but a theologian) which were abusive or if anyone who holds to a contrasting view is a problem? I have seen attempts in the scientific community to shun or condemn alternative minority views throughout history.
Jeffrey J Chalmers,
I think if Genesis 1-3 or for that matter any portion of Scripture is false then it is simply a book with some nice easy teachings and some far out terrible teachings. Therefore I think every portion of scripture is utterly important to the truth of the Christian faith. I also know that faithful Christians disagree on some of the detail of the first three chapters to the point of splitting groups into certain “schools” of interpretation. I think Deuteronomy 29:29 is informative for much of these debates. Knowing MacAthur’s thoughts that extend from this particular topic forgive me an assumption, if you are asking me if I’m a young or old earth believer I think there is room for both in biblically faithful interpretations. If you’re asking me if I believe Darwinian macro-evolution and the Biblical account of Creation are compatible I would say no, given my very basic understanding of the Hebrew in those passages. If that is not your purpose, I apologize for giving you more information than you were looking for in your post.
Dee,
Dee, I apologize, I misread this and thought Chalmers had asked me a question here also. My response was written with that understanding in mind so it may not make sense. I apologize for my confusion.
“Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.” Robert Frost
One path is the predator.
Evil.
Barabbas.
Pedophile.
Spouse-beater.
Rapist.
The other path is prey.
Innocence.
Jesus.
Child.
Battered spouse.
Violated.
With whom does one empathize? The window on one’s very soul.
How is it that attorneys claim that in court cases they’ve seen, the church folk are lockstep in support of the predator? With leaders that theologize to back this up … supporting the male predator?
“There is neither male nor female …”
We recognize idolatry in Hebrew history but not in our own contemporary church culture.
“…there is a severe flaw in MacArthur’s theology that leads him to act poorly…”
Or maybe he just lacks character, and any theological failings follow from that, rather than the other way round?
To put the same thing another way: I don’t think JM and others like him cover up for abusers because their honest scrutiny of Scripture leads them to the conclusion that this is what God wants. I think they want to do the things that suit their own purposes, and engage in motivated reasoning to create a theology that blesses that. Then when they are called upon to choose, as it were, between what is right and what is easy, well… we see what happens.
False? I don’t think anybody said the Bible is false.
The Bible is a collection of precious ancient writings. Ancient people thought very differently than people do today; their understanding of Scripture differed from yours or mine. Literalism says the earth was created in literally seven days, and don’t you dare believe otherwise, or you are denying God, denying Christ, and going to Hell.
I’m comfortable with some mysticism, which literalism just sweeps aside in reducing the Bible to a fact sheet. I’m willing to admit that I don’t understand God, and to say that the Bible attempts to show mere mortals a little bit about God.
Indeed it does have far-out teachings, and some interpretations are indeed terrible. All of us interpret the Bible. All of us are somewhat familiar with worship practices that other churches do; every church has reasons for these, based on Scripture.
What happens.
BTW, are the MacArthur people on board with BCMW and Piperdom? Saw this on Twitter (before Twitter goes away):
“Is the fact that CBMW has only men on their board of directors mansplaining at its finest. ‘Those poor women must surely be thankful that we are here to tell them what Biblical womanhood is.'” https://t.co/kAFgYkYHv1
After watching Julie Roy’s video last month of John MacArthur shaming Eileen Gray from the pulpit DURING COMMUNION, I marched down to my husband’s study, grabbed the MacArthur study Bible and threw it in the trash. I told my husband he had BETTER NOT even think of removing it. Poor fella turned and skeedaddled out of the room, lol.
Jeremy,
Hi Jeremy, nice to see you, again 🙂
Forgive me for interjecting. Neither a scientist nor a theologian, nor do I have particularly strong opinions on the evolution vs creation (or anything in between) debate, so I’m unlikely to be offended if you disagree with what comes next.
But the choice between “literal translation” and “false” regarding Genesis 1-3 is a false dichotomy, I think. Genesis 1-3 could also be an allegory, like the Song of Songs or bits of Proverbs or any of the parables that Jesus used.
While you sound open to hearing different viewpoints, I know some folks who use a literal (new earth) interpretation of Genesis 1-3 as a litmus test for whether or not someone is a Christian. And I don’t think that was Moses’ intent when he wrote Genesis. In some sense, I think that could rightfully be called an “abuse” of the Scripture.
There are people typically regarded as Christian who don’t take Genesis 1-3 literally. Augustine of Hippo, for one, as expressed in Books 12 and 13 of his Confessions. Which I’ll quote here, because I think he gets to the heart of the matter:
“If anyone were to ask me ‘How do you know that Moses meant his words to be taken in the way that you explain them?’ it would be my duty to listen to the question with composure, and in answer I should give the explanation which I have already given, perhaps rather more fully if the questioner were slow to understand [that would be me]. But when a man says ‘Moses did not mean what you say, but what I say,’ and yet does not deny that both his interpretation and mine are consistent with the truth, then O Life of the poor, O my God, in whose bosom there is no contradiction, I beg you to water my heart with forbearance, so that I may bear with such people in patience. They speak as they do not because they are men of God or because they have seen in the heart of Moses, your servant, that their explanation is the right one, but simply because they are proud….” The rest of the chapter (Ch 25 of Book 12) is worth reading for Augustine’s continued description of those who can’t see two possibilities, but I’m pretty sure I’m running over my comment word limit, here.
I think CS Lewis is another person smarter than me who thought Genesis 1-3 could be taken not literally, as well, but I don’t have his words in front of me to quote, so don’t quote me on that.
CMT,
Yes.
Wild Honey,
Stephen Oppenheimer showed that one can take Gen 1 as an eyewitness account of the reappearance of earth and land after an extremely major catastrophe. The term “rib” is a euphemism. Scriptures like all text and speech was intended to have its meaning (from intersecting allusions) conveyed with it. The angels came down Jacob’s ladder as well as going up it.
The expression “day” means period (in the same way that the Day of the Lord begins with the time of greater troubles, or with the signs Jesus enjoined on us to look out for from His ascension on, hence is like a thief in the night to those doing as many did in Noah’s day who weren’t alert). The witness God wishes us to bear is to the gifts Jesus distributed without veto on His ascension.
John Maca. just like his pretend opposite Bill Johnson is an out and out materialist in the Spinoza – William James (Swedenborgian) – Gramsci mould. His dad may have been a materialist with better manners in front of colleagues (this sounds like the Sprouls, and the Manifest Destiny segregationist Falwells, and the Longs, all over again). Materialists (hegemonists) have to manoeuvre blocs of people defined as quantities, who have been educated down to it (subalterns).
Etymology in most languages I know about appears based partly on roots exchanged when many people had to flee to new areas in political as well as natural circumstances. This kind of amount of pidgination probably had to occur more than three times during human history. As M A K Halliday has pointed out, all grammar is metaphorical (and that much the more useful for it). We would do well to read the works of Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy on language (for all their dense style).
quote Anyone dying of cancer and still contacting women via social media is desperately lost unquote
RZ, in the tradition of C&MA, who importuned him as a boy on his suicide bed, diverted attention from the relevance of Daniel to our current post-Ascension ministry by his false dating of Antiochus (Steve Baughman’s red flag, p 159, note 267). In reality Cyrus and Antiochus may have been closer in time than we have often been told, anyway: this is why research into everything is vital and never-ending.
Why wait till his offences begin to get spoken about? I didn’t like the references to cricket in the first place. He wasn’t being given a good formation when he was a boy at a low ebb: did his parents approve of that at the time?
Genuine prophecy is not “prediction” as a party trick but is lesson drawing from events, call to prayer, and the like.
Friend,
I would disagree that the Bible is simply a collection of ancient writings. It is what it claims to be, the Word of God breathed out through man, infallible in its teaching. With that comes complications that are often beyond my comprehension but if it is simply a collection of ancient writings by man, then billions of people have been wasting their time for millennia .
… and it’s not a pretty sight.
Wild Honey,
Hello to you as well. I would disagree that there is not ultimately a false versus true issue. As I stated before, I recognize that faithful Christians have disagreed on age of the earth questions for example . And I would also point out that the scripture seems to be silent on this particular question which is why Deut. 29:29 is helpful. MacAthur and Ken Ham would disagree with me. However, the scriptures are not silent on origin, and in reality without wasting time, that is always the ultimate point of contrast between secular science and the scriptures. The law of non contradiction requires the admission that A and the opposite of A cannot both be correct.
Jeremy,
My comment, and subsequent post, was not so much to start an “argument” as it was to just state that extreme positions/statements, and subsequent grand assumptions made by people like John MacArthur, can drive truely thinking, truth searching, reflective people to either leave the faith or live “partioned” lives. Their “spiritual” life and their “seculuar/scientific” life. This is not only NOT healthy, I would argue that it is “spiritual abuse”, espeically for young people…
This post from “Grace to you”:
https://www.gty.org/library/articles/A176/how-important-is-genesis-13
which I cut a passage from and posted above, is just one of many examples of positions, in John MacArthurs own words, that is problematic on so many levels… I think I do not need to “Get into the weeds” about it.. just let John MacArthurs own words do the talking
Jeremy,
There is not one Christian scientist such as Francis Collins and our own Jeffrey Chalmers who deny Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” From there, the process is in question. We make a huuuuge mistake by attempting to shove a 7 day creation down the throats of faithful Christians who believe the earth tells a different story.
I am so grateful to my pastors. The LCMS position is YEC. However, they never argue the science and simply say “God did this.” They even admit that faithful people have varying views. I have never once felt the need to argue the point in my church. However, when it comes to Ken Ham…
Well said!!
You’re changing my words, but we probably do disagree to some extent. As a lifelong Christian, I would only point out that the Bible has a history. Any Scripture worth revering is also worthy of lifelong study with God-given minds.
Human beings are inquisitive problem solvers. Sincere believers have doubts, especially when they see or experience suffering. In my view, a believer and a congregation will be healthier when they ask, “What does this mean? What do you think?” Instead, too often they are told, “Here’s what this means. Here’s what you think.”
God and the Bible are strong enough to put up with me and my questions, and I am thankful for that.
JMac bills himself as a dispensationalist when it comes to the end times. Funny, THE original dispensationalist study Bible is the Scofield, which accepts old earth and does not deny science. (Old Scofield, not the newer update.)
Friend,
I apologize for misrepresenting your intent thank you for the clarification. I was wrong in my interpretation of that first post.
Jeffrey J Chalmers,
I don’t believe you were being confrontational but you did ask a question prior to the quote you posted. I answered the question. Was there something you found problematic with my answer?
I had a similar “ceremonial” experience with a systematic theology book from the complementation camp, except it was a book that, unfortunately, I had purchased. The trash ceremony left it in a condition that I could be sure it wouldn’t be used by anyone else. I shared the experience with a like-minded friend. We probably gave it too much time. In a more recent moving experience, and downsizing, I was going through old books, some I hadn’t read, some I had, some written by RZ. The RZ ones, and some others, all went more quickly in the trash. There are some other theologians that I wonder about, whose lives lived, once I became a bit more aware, are not… like Fred Rogers, for example. I wonder why, they are quoted or referred to by others?
dee,
Do you believe I did something other than what you described here?
Jeremy,
Not really…or should I saw, do not know..
one has to be careful with media like this… can not always tell what the intent is… and I am just wanting to emphasize Johnny Macs own words, and its potential effect on people..
Time will tell. If Julie has not twisted the truth, shouldn’t the police be involved? Shouldn’t reliable News sources (Not a junk bloger like Julie Roys) report on MacArthur and his “ministry?” Julie is the only source who has been “exposing” John MacArthur’s evil and nefarious lies and molestor hiding ways. Why is no one else taking up the stories?
Oh, and I am not defending MacArthur. He fired Sam Horn for no reason, a friend of mine, and I know people who have been on staff with him, and he is overbearing, a bully, and a “my way or the highway” kind of leader. He comes off in his preaching as angry and testy, not gentle, easy to be entreated and kind. (All requirements of a Christian leader from the New Testament)
Jeffrey J Chalmers,
Thank you for your response. I think MacArthur cuts out large swaths of faithful believers when he takes a hard line on topics I don’t see the scriptures taking a hard line on.
Well, “Jeremy” (new handle we haven’t seen before) has been able to divert this thread into a Young Earth Creationism fight while Johnny Mac sneaks out the back door scot-free.
Saw the same thing happen many years ago on the old God’s Creatures Yahoogroup, except there it was a regular instead of a drive-by. Ended up killing the Yahoogroup; everybody other than Mr WORD! OF! GAWD! ended up bailing out of the group to escape the constant YEC UBer Alles Celebrity Deathmatch.
In related news, a really cool looking mummified dino leg.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-61013740
Bob M,
See next TWW post. I highlight the SEC charges against Johny Mac son, who is on the board of “Grace to You”, and seems well integrated into the MacArthur world..
Not all biblical literalists have a Calvinistic interpretation of Scripture that leads to a lack of compassion. I propose that MacArthur’s worldview undergirds his natural tendency toward harshness and bullying.
Vinnie,
I am a literalist and a Calvinist, but I don’t think that it has led me to have a lack of compassion. I came to my beliefs through studying the original languages og the Old and New Testaments and coming to conclusions, in the context of a strongly Arminian setting.
From the post: “I want to thank Julie Roys for doing what many have long suspected. John MacArthur believes that women who are being abused should stay with their husbands to “win them over” for Christ. Even more disturbing, he shows precious little concern for the children the father may abuse. Even then, the wife, with the children, must stay with the husband.”
I think I remember, from a previous post here, about a story that P.Patterson used along the lines of wives staying with abusive husbands to “win them over for Christ”, etc, that turned out to be made up. At the time that I read of that here, or in a news type article that I may have linked from here, I recalled a book that I read about lies women believe. I thought I remembered that book had used that same sort of story as an example. But I had since let that book go so I couldn’t confirm it. I can confirm that in a small group at an EFCA church (pre-new calvinist takeover) a highly respected professional man told that same sort of story. The people that tell this type of story never mention any “peace” verses or Paul’s “God has called us to live in peace. How do you know , wife, whether you will save your husband? Or husband whether you will save your wife?” I’ve never heard people who tell this story ever talk about child abuse or mention the “millstone” verses.
Ella,
“complementarian”
You statement gave a peek into how I feel towards fundamentalist/complementarianism/soft patriarchy/patriarchy……. whatever you call it
When you cut through the flowery prose used to promote those beliefs and get down to the bare bones, those beliefs strip women of our souls. The comp/pat biblical interpretations place women at the disposal/mercy of men. Married are women are “commanded” to obey and serve men, not God. JM has said as much, though in roundabout ways.
By JM’s teachings (and others), if a wife must be the suffering, sacrificial lamb for the potential repentance and salvation of her husband, then so be it. To these men, women don’t matter much. They’ve proven it time after time. (Listening to their drivel kinda makes me feel like God spewed me out of His mouth the moment I said “I do.”)
Believe me ——- I have sat in an SBC church pew and wondered: If my “salvation” is dependent upon how well I serve and obey someone whom I know to be a fallible, mortal man….. how I even have an eternal soul?
Everything about women is doublespeak.
“You go girl!” … that is a scripture somewhere, but I couldn’t locate it this morning 🙂
If he has the ESV Study Bible, you need to trash that one too … that’s one bad-boy text full of marginal Calvinist commentary.
Headless Unicorn Guy,
I was thinking along the same lines, wondering if the topic of domestic abuse mishandling by a church leader is unintentionally/intentionally being highjacked.
Why isn’t 1 John (the world will know you are Christians by your “one another” love)? If apologetic optimization is of any interest, isn’t this the place to start, rather than violent (IMO) insistent dominance on secondary issues?
It’s as if John MacArthur has suddenly decided to open his mouth and dump all the stuff that has been in his heart for years. I used to put him in the category of Calvinist preachers which I agreed with 80% of what they preached … much less now. (of course, I’ve never agreed with the tenets of reformed theology and those who preach it, but even a blind hog can find an acorn once in a while)
meaning Calvinist commentary in the ESV Study Bible margins
Headless Unicorn Guy,
No, I’ve responded here before using the same handle. I just don’t respond a lot. Most topics have been pretty well handled by the time I arrive. As for diverting the thread I answered a question I was asked. Have a good day.
Ella,
I think you’ll find that the thread was not hijacked at all. I was asked a question and answered it, this in no way deters anyone else from discussing what they think MacArthur did wrong or right.
Bob M,
What people believe affects their daily lives. Not all Calvinists are without compassion, but the worldview can lead to a propensity for coldness, a lack of desire for evangelism, and a reduction in love for the lost. The worldviews of Arminians, charismatics, and fundamentalists also lead to some negative consequences in long term personal outcomes.
JMac is not hard to understand at all. Just look at Jesus’ greatest enemies on earth. They were conservative “believer servants” who greatest sins were hypocrisy. They thought they were superior to everyone else because they had the “right beliefs.” They loved leveraging God in order to have power over people. Jesus called them Sons of Devil and murderers. They conspired to murder the Son of God.
JMac is from the same stock. A legalist whom does not love anything but power and pride. He shuts heaven in the faces of people. He is the worse kind of man on earth. He will face the most severe consequences there are at the final judgement that we all will soon face. May we be more humble than him and show much more mercy, for our own sakes. The faith is all about Orthopraxy according to Jesus. Those who focus solely on Orthodoxy and proudly proclaim that they have it are the hypocrites!
Jeremy,
I would not want you to think that I was referring to you when I wrote that, IMO, I thought insistent dominance on secondary issues was violent. I was thinking of a personal experience of attempts at conversation about science and Christian faith with some Christians. And I was also thinking of the style of some authors/speakers who make that issue primary, IMO.
In terms of hijacking a topic, I think I have unintentionally done that before, and am trying not to do that now.
What is your response regarding JM shaming an abused woman from the pulpit? Was he preaching the gospel that day?
Vinnie,
It does not necessarily lead to this. I could say that an evolutionary view of thw world leads to A christopher Hitchens type of life, wherein one approves of killing children who have birth defects, even after they are born. my point is that those kind of generalizations are not true. I know evolutionists who are moral, good people, in a sense. But I also know Calvinists who are evengelistically on fire, warm hearted, and love the lost. As a matter of fact, the one person I know well, who most here would call a leader in the Calvinista world, has a passion for evangelism and love for the lost that would embarrass most of us.
Ella,
No problem, I know it can happen on threads the longer they hang around and more people post. As for John MacArthur’s treatment of the woman and the situation as a whole it was problematic in its failures from the standpoint of the elder board. I believe MacAthur himself was wrong for doing that publicly and his conclusions of course were proven wrong factually. That information in no way edified the church. In my experience most church discipline issues need not be brought before the entire body.
Bob M,
Bob, I’m talking about worldviews and the resultant propensities, not absolute outcomes. There ARE generalizations. Many evolutionists ARE careless toward human life and have a greater tendency toward moral relativism. I’m not here to debate Calvinism or creationism or any other ism. Read Francis Shaeffer re: logical conclusions of worldview.
Thanks for your gracious reply. I’m glad when people can have a respectful discussion.
Not singling out any person who posts here, but in general, the unifying themes of thread derailment are literalism and slaying the messenger (and, OK, occasionally pie and hush puppies). People don’t always intend to divert. Some are bad actors. Some have sincere beliefs that run deeper than one might assume. Some are encountering different viewpoints for the first time, and they sound amazingly like the pastors they’ve listened to their whole lives.
Yes, we (I) need to stay on topic, but it’s also OK for one of us to walk while the other chews gum. Within reason.
Jeremy,
Thanks for your response and addressing my questions.
Friend,
No worries.
Ella,
No worries.
Jeremy,
I was going to ask a related question about how to reconcile faithful believers who must also work in scientific fields (doctors and nurses, to start), but see you have already tangentally answered it.
In response to your earlier comment about origin vs age/process, my apologies, I misunderstood your emphasis.
Speaking as an outsider to both disciplines, in their purest forms, I think both theology and science are seeking what is true. Theology by studying God’s special revelation (Scripture), science by studying God’s general revelation (creation). Pride and other human limitations (on both sides) often get in the way, which is why I think there’s so much conflict between the two, but also people who readily embrace both while keeping their heads down to avoid the darts from the extremists (such as John MacArthur on the one side).
Speaking as a history student, many historical scientists didn’t see conflict between their faith and their profession. Copernicus, Issac Newton, Blaise Pascal, just off the top of my head.
Sure, there is “true” and there is “false,” but when we’re talking about something extremely complicated, as you quote from Deuteronomy, there’s only so much our finite human minds will be able to comprehend. Which is why I get nervous when someone takes a huge concept from scripture and imposes a very narrow interpretation. I would agree that scripture itself is infallible (not sure if this is the specific word you would use), but our human interpretations of it are not, because we are not.
Wild Honey,
That is well said, science and theology broadly speaking do not have to be at odds. I can’t imagine improving upon your sentiments expressed here.
A great quote to put on your refrigerator, folks!
Jeremy has been here before.
He is respectful, in my experience. But when one walks in minefields (as all of us do who participate here), the occasional spark is inevitable.
Wild Honey,
Thank you.
I hope you put it in the recycling bin, if you have that for paper where you live.
Some books really deserve a second chance, as TP or paper towels, for instance.
Bob M,
‘Time will tell. If Julie has not twisted the truth, shouldn’t the police be involved? Shouldn’t reliable News sources (Not a junk bloger like Julie Roys) report on MacArthur and his “ministry?” Julie is the only source who has been “exposing” John MacArthur’s evil and nefarious lies and molestor hiding ways. Why is no one else taking up the stories?’
You mean like reporting on MacArthur’s son being sued by the SEC for defrauding while working at the investment company John MacArthur co-owned? And he was on the board of Grace to You at the time.
Or do you mean how WASC put The Master’s University and Seminary on academic probation reporting, among many other things:
“a pervasive culture and climate of fear, intimidation, bullying, and uncertainty”
“the related reports of lack of leadership ethics and accountability that emerged was unmatched for members of this review team.”
“Board members stated unequivocally that they could say “no” to the president, but could not identify any occasions on which they actually had done so and self-identified as President MacArthur’s closest friend sin the world”
Why do you think Ravi Zacharias’ works should be burned? Is the destruction of ideas of people you disagree with a good way to solve problems?
PSA
Should be careful with the HCSB and the CSB Study Bibles as well. The translation is apparently an SBC product and the Study Bible is as well. Some names of those who contributed essays:
Ed Stetzer
Mark Dever
Paige Patterson
Bruce Ware
Daniel Akin
Mary Kassian. The sole woman who was allowed to contribute. She wrote a thinly disguised essay on complementarianism (of course).
The essay ends with this phrase:
“Women who highly esteem the Bible and have a good grasp of doctrine . . . . . will have a tremendous impact in mentoring their children and friends in the ways of the Lord.”
The vast majority (90% or so) of the essay contributors either have degrees from or are teachers at: SBTS, SEBTS, or SWBTS.
I don’t know what the actual study Bible notes are like (and I don’t have a lot of interest in looking through them to find out) but I can only imagine (and not in the John Lennon sense).
By the way Max, One can only wish that Calvinist Commentary were a lot more marginal than it is.
As for JMac. This video on cults and what they are sure makes elements of their behavior sound solidly on the spectrum of being cultic:
https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p0c37r7p/what-are-cults-and-why-do-people-join-them-
I like your creative thinking! Unfortunately, I wasn’t thinking as creatively at the time. If there’s a “next time”, I’ll keep this in mind.
I suspect that using book paper as TP on the nether regions would be as rough on them as reading certain books probably is on the mind and soul.
Gus,
I used to abhor writing in books. But I abhor burning them even more. These days, I summarize my disagreements inside the front cover, or write them in the margins where appropriate. Then release the books back into the wild to try and do some damage control.
Jeremy,
To honest thinkers all bodies of knowledge (and knowledge is usually tentative) depend on background information and unlimited degrees of inference (depending how settled the field is). Bertrand Russell thought so and John Henry Newman thought so.
That’s how the persons we have the misfortune to complain of are abusing and insulting everything God given.
Wild Honey,
Your thoughtful approach might help some people begin to consider their assumptions, or at least question the value of whatever the church is recommending this week.
I know you know this, and hope you’ll forgive me for pointing it out. Discarding one’s own book is not the same as gathering a group of people and throwing books onto a fire.
Some material is genuinely harmful; the Protocols of the Elders of Zion nurtured genocide. Some things become abhorrent when we learn about the author; my Bill Cosby albums from the 1960s are in the landfill. What would the world be like if the last copy of each of these things went away? Offhand I’d say the disappearance of the Protocols would make the world a better place, but that’s unlikely to happen.
Yes.
The poster child for “Christian” personality cults in America.
Agreed. SBC’s New Calvinists have taken those over with not so subtle hints of reformed theology in their commentary.
Elijah,
I was planning on putting a LOL emogi asa responseto your comment. Then, I thought, perhaps this person has been living in Singapore for the last couple of years and is not aware of the problems with Ravi.
Elijah-the problem with Ravi has nothing to do with simply “disagreeing” with RZ. The guy will be known as one of the biggest perverts to ever attract evangelical celebrity status. Do you know what happened? That as he lay dying he was still contacting women? This guy was such a sicko that I do not believe for a minute that he was a Christian. All of his works are questionable and should not be used in any Christian setting. Or, as my son used to say when he was 10, “Gag me with a spoon.”
“A woman, whether she is married or single, must recognize the fact that in general, as a woman, she must have a spirit of submission to all men” (John MacArthur)
I’m hoping that God will manifest Himself as a woman to JMac when he passes into eternity.
Friend,
Oh, I realize this. And the prevalence of printed material in general is so much greater these days, anything a lone individual does is unlikely to make a huge difference. Even the harmful stuff, I’d suggest, in the right hands can be helpful to show us where someone went wrong and how to avoid that in the future. But the trouble is in keeping it out of the wrong hands, and I have no solution for that.
Max on Tue Apr 26, 2022 at 09:49 PM said:
I’m hoping that God will manifest Himself as a woman to JMac when he passes into eternity.
Wouldn’t that be a hoot!
dee,
An expression such as “works should be burned” is not a helpful metaphor (it reminds me of Calvin). Elijah’s question wasn’t slanted as far as I can penetrate among its briefish and plainish words. Friend has distinguished:
– Some material is genuinely harmful;
– Some things become abhorrent when we learn about the author;
Ravi consistently followed the theocratists of the C&MA in diverting attention from Holy Spirit ministry and eschaton. We should not be waiting for people’s morals to slip, we should figure out their doctrines.
Mr. Jesperson: on Orthodoxy
Which he isn’t remotely near, not one jot. Where did we find the archaeological genealogy of his teachings comes from? We suspect his dad merely had better manners in front of colleagues. Whooppee.
When did christians last rebel against the “given” as opposed to objective body of Scripture interpretations? Did christians seriously think a quite sophisticated God (let’s admit it) would reduce good news for those who are already on His side, to “you’ll only be saved if you do what the boss says” when the boss defines you as in the wrong (ladies, they do it to us all * ). Why would the powerless public trust such a god? Innocent agnostics of good will watched horrified as preachers perverted millions of good christian children.
{ * as a bloke, I never thought it blokish – only nasty – to buy into “at least they are only nasty to the girls, hooray”. }
Find out what the real actual Gospel is and promulgate it. Crowd lies out. Stop trying to be a controller just because the villains are better controllers than you. Do the hordes give you rent free head space? The real truth and the real future are uncertain, to Elijah, to Jeremiah, to Jonah, to Thomas, to Job.
Every time I look more previous replies appeared to earlier comments, which other people replying hadn’t been made aware of. We should move the issues forward, properly. Don’t just wait till one “prominent personality” does or says one more little distasteful thing. Do any of us know the objective Gospel? How many of us were vicious when children?
In my comments I’m trying to shift you all along to real and big gospel focus as per Jesus: to give each other belief. I send you another Comforter: ascending He distributed gifts, unvetoed. Heavy duty events have befallen the world. Are they going to ask us questions?
I hope you included his devilish “apologetism” in this years ago. His wife’s commercial machine ensnared those with an evangelising (and not “apologetising”) gift such as John Lennox.
Muff Potter,
Why not?
Speaking of Genesis 1, “So God created humankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.”
If I didn’t know anything about God or the Bible and just read this at face value I would understand God’s image is not expressed in men only, but in men and women side by side, taken equally & entirely together. In other words, God is not a man/male. Considering MacArthur insists on reading Genesis 1-3 literally it is quite amazing he would lose sight of this point.
About the eternal submission of women to men (which MacArthur and others like him espouse): the fall included women being ruled by their husbands. It also included the ground producing weeds, Adam having to work by the sweat of his brow to grow food.
Question: since God curse the ground is it wrong for Christian men to use weed killer on their lawns and in their gardens or fields? Is it wrong from men to sit in air-conditioned tractors? Worse yet, it is wrong to even use tractors? I mean, shouldn’t men be using hand tools to plow and harvest because they need to work by the sweat of their brows? Just sayin. If it’s ok for men to do these things (thus nillifying/overcoming the curse) why isn’t it ok for women to be equal partners with men, especially now that Jesus has set us free from the curse and in Christ there is no slave, free, greek or jew, male or female.
Not my problem. But also extending to fear of upsetting the apple cart through self interest.
Although it is incredibly unlikely that other clergy didn’t know about abusing priests and the way it was mishandled by the bishops, the ones who tried to do anything about it are very few indeed, and for the same reasons.
And that makes perfect sense.
However in Roman Catholic theology there is a very important sense in which it is expressed in men only. The priest is considered to act in the person of Christ, ie Christ is doing what he is doing at the altar and they are described as other Christs. This is the reason women are excluded from the RC priesthood because it is said to be Christ you have to be a man.
Now if you were to say that it is utterly bizarre to insist clergy have male generative organs and also forbid some, but not all, of them to use them for reproduction, you would be bang on the money.
Wild Honey,
Thank you. 🙂
More like he reads it as literally as Hal Lindsay reads the Book of Revelation literally.
Or of Savonarola.
Or that one urban legend about the destruction of the Library of Alexandria:
“If these books agree with the Koran (ie. SCRIPTURE), they are superfluous and may be burned. If they don’t agree with the Koran (i.e. SCRIPTURE), they are heretical and MUST be burned. AL’LAH’U AKBAR!”
A sermon you will never hear JMac preach … or in any New Calvinist church, for that matter. They just don’t know what to do with Galatians 3:28, so they avoid it like Covid (oh wait a minute, JMac doesn’t have to avoid Covid – Covid avoids him)
Headless Unicorn Guy on Wed Apr 27, 2022 at 10:57 AM said:
More like he reads it as literally as Hal Lindsay reads the Book of Revelation literally.
Old Hal is still around and pluggin’ away on the Daystar network.
Fisher on Wed Apr 27, 2022 at 06:33 AM said:
Why not?
Why not what?
In no way did I endorse ‘Biblical’ patriarchy, or whatever MacArthur teaches regarding the same.
If anything, I’m a resident liberal here at TWW, and support the full enfranchisement of women in Church life, which includes women in the Pastorate.
Michael in UK,
Hello Michael,
There is value is seeking out and understanding how personal perspective influences understanding while at the same time seeking out continuous threads of truth that stand the test of time, geography, and culture.
Surprisingly few of those exist. When a truth does exist, a given culture or religion is bound to claim exclusive rights to it.
People fight over who owns the Golden Rule.
Max,
No, Johnny Mac outright denied it…. He is “on record” saying Covid is NOTa pandemic..
Friend,
That is human nature, unfortunately.
I’m a country girl…….. still heat the house with wood heat, and still use an old charcoal grill (stuff just tastes better cooked over charcoal).
The best, most practical “second chance” I can think of for some of those books is to use the pages to start fires, and then spreading the ashes over the garden as compost.
At least that won’t plug up our septic pipes.
And everybody shouted AMEN! (or should have)
Actually, charcoal is an appropriate word when talking about “pastors” who use and abuse God’s people.
I’m sure his congregation jumped to their feet shouting Amen and applauding. Whew, I don’t know which concerns me more … the pulpit or the pew.
When Christians try to mention the common ground among major religions (love, mercy, selflessness, charity), they are often accused of syncretism, or shouted down by people who claim that every idea in the Bible is unique to Christianity.
This kind of discourse probably happens in other religions too, but I’m a Christian and have heard it only among Christians.
But anyway the common ground is there. I find it comforting to learn about other religions’ ideas about charity, prayer, and so forth. This does not weaken my faith; it just reminds me that God created all of us.
Friend,
I would agree that God’s attributes of love, mercy, justice etc. are found in both believers and unbelievers. It is the imprint of the likeness of God on His creation. It’s also a merciful restraint on evil that all humans have an understanding of mercy etc.
Jeremy,
Yes this is why I turned to self homeschooling in my old age (linguistics were my starting point). God wants me to express my individuality by exercising my aptitude for investigation and inference. In my young day in S E England it seemed normal to accept what we term “faith” but was for me just a normal degree of sophistication. But dazed by early difficulties in studying, I afterwards lazily went with the irrational “flow” on all sides.
I’m just reading in James Hannam about the problems the medievals such as Heytesbury had with relativity, which lie at the basis of year 7 school physics and ordinary (very successful) engineering. I knew that God is outside time as well as inside. To measure is to use a heuristic, whether we know why we are using it or not. The moment Bergson started talking about time, he was misunderstood.
Language alludes: the word is not the thing. Experimental and speculative science blend into each other, and need to. Zero sum is less fashionable to my mind, than to some others’. I learned the hard way (in bad churches) not to do material dialectic (pincer movements).
Jeremy,
Paul is calling out the truth twisters and reminding us that those stronger than us will misuse their power.
Michael in UK,
As I understand it, Paul was under house arrest by the Roman authorities. In the passage, Paul is rejoicing, not concerned about his own predicament, and presuming that the power of Christ’s message will always prevail. He’s also telling people to rise above their conflicts.
I don’t want to believe that Paul is anything like the abusive pastor’s apologist: “Yeah, he robs us blind and gropes our women. But he sure can preach!”
Is Paul addressing something akin to today’s abusive pastors? I genuinely don’t know, and would welcome any insight.
Michael in UK,
Are you referring to the passage that I posted above?
Years and years ago, McArthur wrote an article0s for Moody Monthly magazine about “The Charismatics.” I was a college student at the time, and I had friends who were heavily in the movement (this was late 1970s/early 1980s). I had my own questions about the movement itself. But McArthur’s whole tone/attitude toward the movement totally turned me off. He was totally dismissive, and felt that no real evangelical could be involved in this. He even made accusations that the leaders were actually practcing witchcraft! Moody Monthly ceased publication in the early 2000s,so I cannot attach the article. But since that time, I have always had a bad feeling about him, and never bought any of his books, or listened to him on the radio.
MacArthur is mean-spirited … no one would ever accuse him of being loving and kind. He speaks with authority … illegitimate authority.
I sold my books of his about a year ago after he started preaching QANON adjacent conspiracies about the pandemic.
Calvinism is John MacArthur’s first problem. He is wrong on salvation, no surprise he is wrong in other areas as well.
Friend,
(and to 3.20) Yes, in passing. His tone towards “superapostles” is always ironic, look at Galatians and II Cor. He is so clever at putting things light heartedly we might miss how trenchant the point is. Superapostles are going to make things difficult for us all yet; as they did for Jesus anyway. Paul’s point is always that he is making several points at the same time! It’s incumbent on the Lord to “declare” what preaching was bad, but it’s incumbent on us to be discerning and shrewd.
The reason Julie Roys is the only one reporting on John MacArthur abuse cases is because she is the person that we– the victims, trust to tell our stories. She is an investigative journalist, not just a journalist.
Michael in UK,
Thank you.
Sometimes I worry that I’ve missed the point, and sometimes that yet more passages are being molded into clobber verses.
Yes Paul is calling out the truth twisters pretty strongly and not in denial about his predicament but not being seen as blaming them. The superapostles were constantly taunting him for his dire tribulations and foolishness by contrast with their sleek and ingratiating image, and he turns the tables by “agreeing” with them in a sense they didn’t intend.
He is a sign of the Jonah of “Make Israel Great Again” days though he goes one better in some ways, and is like Jeremiah of “Make Judah Great Again” days. Which was Jonah’s “Dutch voyage”, his first or second one? Who will get Jeremiah out of the well?
How many of us are critiquing the element that got heavy with a 17 year old on his (hospital) suicide bed? Had his own prior childhood religion groomed him and his parents to not see parts of truth? Was looking to Mr Hwang an attempt to subliminally mollify / appease the C&MA, or to break out of the C&MA grip? To wish it to be for the good? Who had a part in the contortions of the Zacharias corporation(s) and / or estate and where did it come from into their lives?
When the C&MA were founded, 200 years ago, were they a part goodish bunch with part good principles? Did insecurity lead to their inadvertently forgetting some? Why were any of us misinterpreting Daniel anyway?
What pulled down the morale, in adolescence, of any prelate that has mutually “granted favours” in rising up the pole of Rome / Lambeth / Canterbury? What undermined the guard of their own parents and teachers? Was the inherited inexorable dialectic of sensual religion explained badly, thousands of years ago? Is life topsy turvy, or is life topsy turvy?
Just like the (comedy relief) High Priests of Ra in Prince of Egypt?
His story brings back memories of hearing a sermon in the fundamentalist sect I grew up in but have left far behind. The minister in another rant said that it would be God honouring for a woman to stay with her abusive husband, even if she were to die. Seems his view was far more widespread than I realised.