“During the course of a 13-second exposure, the International Space Station makes a trail of light in the sky as the station appears to pass among the stars of the Milky Way, next to the bright planet Jupiter. At the time this photo was taken, six people were living and working aboard the space station, while NASA’s Juno spacecraft orbited Jupiter.”
I decided to search “John MacArthur” on my website. I was not surprised to see that the list was rather long. Here are a few that stand out. (Some of the videos may not work. I don’t have time to go back and update them.)
- MacArthur often claims he was with Charles Evers when King was assassinated. The claim is dubious. Civil Rights Hero, Charles Evers, Tells John MacArthur to Stop Lying About *Being There.* Team MacArthur Has Responded.
- Updated: John MacArthur Speaks to Seminary Students, Allegedly Pays His Son-in-Law Very Well and Claims There is No Racism in *Authentic* Evangelical Churches.
- John MacArthur’s The Masters University Has Been Put On Probation By The Western Association of Schools and Colleges
- Jane’s Traumatic Rape and Subsequent Mistreatment at John MacArthur’s ‘The Master’s College’ (now University)
In this post, MacArthur also gave concerning advice for parents whose children tell them that they are gay. This story goes on to describe a sad story by a Christian mother whose Christian professing son committed suicide.
If they profess to be a Christian, you have to alienate them, you have to separate them. You can’t condone that; it’s inconsistent with the profession of Christ. So, you isolate them; you don’t have a meal with them; you separate yourself from them. You turn them over to Satan, as it were as scripture says.”
Take back the child abuser: Why you should never join and sign a church membership in a hardcore Calvinsta church like John MacArthur’s Grace Church:
Julie Roys wrote an excellent investigation into a shameful story at Grace Church: EXCLUSIVE: John MacArthur Shamed, Excommunicated Mother for Refusing to Take Back Child Abuser
In this sick and infuriating story, MacArthur excommunicated a woman who refused to stay married to the abuser of her children.
Eileen had, however, filed legal separation and restraining orders against David due to his repeated abuse of her and her children, as well as his alleged stalking and threats to kill them and himself. At the time of the shaming, Eileen had obtained a court order requiring that David’s visits with the children be monitored and restricting him from coming within 100 yards of Eileen.
As Eileen explained in an exclusive interview with The Roys Report, she went to GCC elders, hoping they would protect her and her children and get David professional help.
Instead, she says the church subjected her to spiritually abusive counseling and used church discipline to try and coerce her to take David back into the family’s home.
This was not just he said/she said. The husband confessed to some of the abuse.
In subsequent counseling sessions, David presented Hardy with a handwritten, four-page list of “sins” against Eileen and his children, Eileen said. On one of these pages obtained by The Roys Report, David admits he used a “belt & rod way too harshly—brutally” on a child. He also says he “tied up” and “locked up” the child and was not always “adequately dressed” in the child’s presence.
Eventually, it was discovered the husband may have sexually abused the children.
Today, David Gray is serving 21 years to life for aggravated child molestation, corporal injury to a child, and child abuse.
Just last Friday, the California Board of Parole denied Gray parole for 10 years.
The transcript of that hearing is not yet available. But according to retired detective Nelson, who participated in Gray’s parole hearing via zoom, commissioners described Gray’s crimes as atrocious and said the evidence against him was overwhelming. Commissioners added that Gray weaponized religion and used the church to gain trust, Nelson said.
Eileen refused to take her husband back into the home and “suffer for Jesus. She was excommunicated from the church and there were even hints that she could die.
(S)ometimes the punishment can be so severe that the person dies,” MacArthur stated in the sermon. “In the Corinthian church, there were some people who were weak and some were sick and some were dead because their sins were manifest at the Lord’s Table, remember that?”
Then, before administering communion and shaming Eileen, MacArthur urged his listeners to confess their sins so they “won’t suffer the discipline.”
MacArthur and BFFs cruelties stem from a wooden, overly literal translation of Scripture.
John MacArthur and the pastors, counselors, and the assorted ones “who do stuff and carry the water for MacArthur” are responsible for this fiasco. They take what he says as “gospel” and rarely think for themselves. They can’t. They are spellbound by celebrity and fandom. Remember that if you choose to attend a church that is run by one of his acolytes.
I love the Scripture, and I take it seriously. Followers of MacArthur would say one must always obey precisely what is said in Scripture. But is that what he does? For example, MacArthur said that all true believers (meaning Christians) would vote for Trump. I looked all through Scripture, and I cannot find an example of Jesus or his disciples advocating a particular form of political activism. The closest interaction with the political system I could find was Paul, who went to Rome to plead for his life.
I am one to consider moral and ethical issues before I vote. However, such consideration is not spelled out specifically in Scripture. Nonetheless, I think such concerns are Scriptural. I am confused. MacArthur said the following issues are why “good Christians” should vote for Trump.
“There’s no way that a Christian can affirm the slaughter of babies, homosexual activity, homosexual marriage, or any kind of gross immorality,” MacArthur asserted.
He makes no mention about the care of the poor, the environment, and how economic policies affect the disenfranchised. Also, how does he view immorality as expressed by Donald Trump or the actions of Bill Clinton in sexually engaging Monica Lewinsky since he is against gross immorality? Also, I bet the poor are discussed in Scripture more than homosexuals.
I believe that MacArthur’s interpretation of what the Scripture says about divorce is simplistic and dangerous for women and children.
Let’s take a look at Grace Church’s statement on divorce.
The only New Testament grounds for divorce are sexual sin or desertion by an unbeliever. The first is found in Jesus’ use of the Greek word porneia (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). This is a general term that encompasses sexual sin such as adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and incest. When one partner violates the unity and intimacy of a marriage by sexual sin—and forsakes his or her covenant obligation—the faithful partner is placed in an extremely difficult situation. After all means are exhausted to bring the sinning partner to repentance, the Bible permits release for the faithful partner through divorce (Matt. 5:32; 1 Cor. 7:15).
The second reason for permitting a divorce is in cases where an unbelieving mate does not desire to live with his or her believing spouse (1 Cor. 7:12-15). Because “God has called us to peace” (v. 15), divorce is allowed and may be preferable in such situations. When an unbeliever desires to leave, trying to keep him or her in the marriage may only create greater tension and conflict. Also, if the unbeliever leaves the marital relationship permanently but is not willing to file for divorce, perhaps because of lifestyle, irresponsibility, or to avoid monetary obligations, then the believer is in an impossible situation of having legal and moral obligations that he or she cannot fulfill. Because “the brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases” (1 Cor. 7:15) and is therefore no longer obligated to remain married, the believer may file for divorce without fearing the displeasure of God.
He claims that there are only two grounds for divorce:
- sexual sins such as adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, and incest
- an unbelieving mate does not desire to live with their spouse.
That’s it: nothing else, nada.
This means, in MacArthurese, Jesus must have believed that:
- Beating a spouse means the marriage should go on,
- Child abuse means the marriage must go on.
- Psychological abuse in which a spouse taunts or threatens the other means the union must continue.
MacArthur, friends, and hangers-on can justify going beyond Scripture for political reasons, but a wife or child must endure abuse at all costs.
Here are some concerns.
MacArthur may not be educated in the dynamics of abuse.
Once a man beats his wife once, he will be highly likely to do so again. He may become increasingly violent, which can end in tragedy. Oh, he will repent to his pastor and send his wife flowers, over and over again. Abuse escalates, and his “rule” condemns spouses and children to a life of terror and fear. The psychological impact may last a lifetime. All this is because MacArthur believes that Jesus would have spelled it out precisely. Just like He said something about the votes of good Christians.
MacArthur may be ignoring some history behind Jesus’ statement.
From a respected pastor (Yes, MacArthurites, I know only MacArthur gets this stuff right but listen anyway.) I learned that Jewish leaders in the time of Jesus came up with some rule that they could easily divorce their wives by simply saying “I divorce you” three times. It was a quick way to get out of a marriage. When Jesus said that they could only divorce for the reason of adultery, he was protecting the women who often were left destitute by this rule. Women were also allowed to divorce men for “no cause” as well. This “no cause” clause may be what Jesus was targeting. This is dealt with In an article by David Instone-Brewer: Bible Scandals: Marital Abuse.
The important question for Christians is how Jesus and Paul interpreted this Old Testament law of divorce for neglect and abuse. One problem the church has grappled with for centuries is that Jesus appeared to forbid divorce “for any cause … except sexual immorality” (Matthew 19:3-9). The common interpretation until recently has been that Jesus allowed divorce only for adultery. This has been very difficult to understand pastorally and seems absurdly contradictory of other biblical principles since it appears to condone abuse and abandonment. Even as early as AD 200 the Church Father Origen was puzzled by it. He said that if a wife was trying to poison her husband, or if she deliberately killed their baby, then for her husband “to endure sins of such heinousness which seem to be worse than adultery or fornication, will appear to be irrational”. Nevertheless, Jesus’ teaching appeared plain, so the church followed it.
This mystery has been recently solved by research in ancient Jewish documents where we find that the phrase ‘Any Cause’ divorce was a legal term equivalent to the modern no-fault divorce (see the chapter ‘No-fault Divorce’). By means of a legalistic interpretation of the phrase “cause of immorality” in Deuteronomy 24:1, some rabbis allowed divorce for both ‘Immorality’ and ‘Any Cause’. When they asked Jesus what he thought, he confirmed that this phrase referred merely to divorce for adultery (nothing “except sexual immorality”). He totally rejected the newly invented divorce for ‘Any Cause’. The misunderstanding through the centuries has been the belief that Jesus was referring to all grounds for divorce rather than the ‘Any Cause’ divorce specifically.
Jesus actually said nothing about the law of divorce for neglect and abuse in Exodus 21. This was partly because he wasn’t asked about it and partly because it wasn’t a topic of debate like the text in Deuteronomy 24. All rabbis still accepted these biblical grounds of neglect of food, clothing and love and ancient Jewish marriage contracts found in caves near the Dead Sea show that its three requirements were incorporated into Jewish marriage vows. Every couple would promise each other to provide “food, clothing and bed” (a euphemism for sexual intercourse), just as it says in Exodus 21.
How many women would rather their husbands commit adultery instead of beating them?
A woman I met while writing about the Sovereign Grace Ministry mess told me she was commanded to stay in her marriage even though she was being regularly beaten. Her children were also being abused and wouldn’t be given enough food to eat. She had her arm broken twice and her ribs fractured on several occasions. She finally got out of the marriage, along with her children. She said that she would have been much happier if her husband had committed adultery since at least they wouldn’t be physically and psychologically abused. She became convinced that Jesus didn’t mean for divorce to be restricted only to adultery. Why would a marriage get to break up over a one-night stand but would have to stay together through beatings and all sorts of abuse? This makes absolutely no sense. Could you imagine Jesus being as cruel as MacArthur was in the video on Julie Roys’ website?
MacArthur’s celebrity status means that his fanboys will preach similar abusive theology in their church. For example, take Matt Chandler.
This blog has posted some articles in which churches that have strong ties to MacArthur have implemented heartless theology in their cold churches, which can be dangerous for women and children. Very few haven’t heard of Matt Chandler’s despicable discipline of Karen Hinckley. Karen’s husband was addicted to child porn which allegedly included an 8-month-old baby. Karen wanted a divorce, and Chandler went out of his way to try to force her to stay married to the creep. I wrote several posts on the matter at TWW. The story hit media all over the world. Here is one from the Daily Beast. Megachurch: Stay With Your Kiddie Porn-Watching Husband—or Face ‘Discipline’
Did you know that Chandler takes cues from MacArthur, John Piper, and other “loving and thoughtful” Calvinista pastors? Tim Challies (one of the gang) wrote Matt Chandler’s Radical Reminder that “God Is For God”
Chandler, on the other hand, he took much of his inspiration from Reformed theological giants, John Piper, John MacArthur, J.I.Packer.
I fall back to the obvious. There is no good reason that Jesus would allow divorce for a one-night stand but insist that a woman stays in a marriage that has a high likelihood of putting her into intensive care. No wonder such mandates by cold and heartless leaders have led to many women rejecting the church because they aren’t welcome unless they are willing to get beat up by their spouses.
MacArthur should be ashamed of himself. I wonder if he’ll ever apologize.