The View from Earth: Space Station, Jupiter, Milky Way-NASA, Bob Dunford
“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.”
“Hot heads and cold hearts never solved anything.” ―
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
and
EXCLUSIVE: John MacArthur’s Church Supported Convicted Child Abuser & Pedophile, Records Show
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”.[3] 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.
What MacArthur et al did to Eileen.
What Piper et al did to Natalie.
What Chandler et al did to Karen.
“Et al” ‘cuz it takes a village.
Pattern. Systemic evil.
Just as one can line up Moon, Elron Hubbard, & Keith Raniere et al and see a type + a company, one can line up MacArthur, Piper, & Chandler et al and see a type + a company.
Sadists and their cult followers.
It seems a factor in this story that doesn’t get much notice is the church’s open hostility to professional counseling. In the letter from Pastor Barber linked in the first of the two Roys articles, he quotes a letter he received from David Gray that says
“…Eileen insists that I get professional counseling instead. However, because the Word of God is sufficient, and the Elders at my church have instructed me not to be involved with ‘professional’ biblical counseling which heavily draws on psychology I therefore want to obey my Elders (Hebrews 13:17) and not seek the world’s ‘wisdom’ (Col 2:8).”
I wouldn’t be surprised if this suspicion of ‘worldly wisdom’ also plays heavily into their continued narrative that David was falsely imprisoned and it was Eileen’s fault. Clearly, it was the evil psychologists that aided and abetted the crazy wife in this frame-up.
I learned a lot from this piece, and am still slack jawed at the exegesis of the ‘no cause’ element. We should note that people didn’t marry for reasons of romance, which in many places is true today – many couples did not choose each other.
and I am here with one quibble, in the phrase similar to one I had to break myself of, “I love the Scripture.” The noun should be plural, Scriptures, writings, as there are multiple authors with varying points of view that provide parallax, thus revealing there is dimension and depth to explore…as evidenced by the ‘no cause’ exegesis above.
For the sake of your readers, here is a rebuttal of Julie Roy’s comments on John MacArthur, which gives a different view than her views.
https://protestia.com/2022/03/14/judge-julie-accusing-the-shepherd
https://protestia.com/2022/03/22/roys-vs-macarthur-anatomy-of-a-smear
Tom Hill
“Wooden, Heartless Faith”
A sign of the times: “… false prophets will appear and deceive many people … the love of most will grow cold …” (Matthew 24)
Hyper-Calvinism is a cold unloving expression of faith, it always has been. From Calvin forward, it’s primary identifier has been arrogance not love.
“This means, in MacArthurese, Jesus must have believed that: Beating a spouse means the marriage should go on …”
John Piper, another Hyper-Calvinist, holds to this same stinkin’ thinkin’:
“If it’s not requiring her to sin, but simply hurting her, then I think she endures verbal abuse for a season, she endures perhaps being smacked …”
And these men have thousands of followers?! Good Lord! What is wrong with you folks?!!
“MacArthur’s celebrity status means that his fanboys will preach similar abusive theology in their church.”
Sadly, it may take decades to rid the church of the influence of such New Calvinist bad-boys. The window was open 20 years ago for the American church to challenge the new reformation and its bad actors … that window is now closed. MacArthurites, Piperites, Driscollites, etc. now abound in American pulpits. They have supplanted the authority and influence of Jesus with their own … and it ain’t holy.
I think MacArthur et al oppose professional counseling because they can’t control a member as much as they would like if a member begins to interact with and think with someone outside these pastors’ influence.
I don’t think all “biblical counselors” are suspect, but I’ve read multiple stories in which they are used as a means of controlling a person. All these stories had one thing in common: the “biblical counselor” was attached to the church or ministry that the client attended or served. In these cases there seemed to be a conflict of interest in which the counselor was trying to serve the interests of the leaders of the church or ministry under the guise of serving the client.
One other thing: I don’t think MacArthur’s cruelty STEMS from a bad interpretation of Scripture. I think his cruelty comes from his own sinful, unloving heart. I think he uses bad interpretations of Scripture as a pretext for his abusive and controlling behavior. Many Christians are led to believe adultery and abandonment are the only “biblical” reasons for divorce and STILL have enough decency, love, and wisdom to recognize situations in which divorce is necessary, chalking up the cognitive dissonance to their own fallibility.
Exactly. They discourage church members from visiting other churches, listening to other preachers, interpreting Scripture on their own. Personality cults control by manipulation, intimidation and domination. Group think replaces critical thinking. MacArthur is the poster boy for this fringe of Christendom.
Indeed. Anything and everything coming from the pulpit should be evaluated considering the whole Bible. False prophets depend on cherry-picked Scripture and eisegesis to support aberrant theology (e.g., New Calvinism). You can make Scripture say what you want it to if you torture it long enough.
Thomas Hill,
Thomas,
You are welcome to debate politely, as you have here. However, if you want to make a better claim on your take on MacArthur, I would recommend that you do not encourage people to go to Protestia. You lose your argument at that moment. If you don’t know what I mean, you should.
I am not a Greek scholar, and I do not know if the Nazarene pastor who taught me the following was one either. And at the time the Nazarenes were really tough about divorce. HOWEVER, our pastor at that time said that the verse in the KJV that refers to an unbeliever being “content to dwell” with the believer left out a whole lot he got from reading it in the Greek. He taught us first that actions speak louder than words, and Jesus made clear it was not those who profess to be believers but those that live it who are believers. So an abusive spouse, no matter what they profess, is to be treated as an unbeliever. And that the Greek for the word dwell was NOT the equivalent of sharing living quarters, but rather a word that might convey the idea of sharing a home in peace. No peace, no “dwell” according to him.
Could have been all wet, but did seem to me to match up with the rest of the Bible. Which meant if someone was an abusive jerk it was no sin to kick them to the curb and divorce them.
This isn’t just a church problem. Missouri has a candidate for senator who was run off as governor a few years back for immoral behavior. His ex wife has alleged some pretty awful behavior.
‘The only New Testament grounds for divorce are sexual sin’
Even if you take the Macarthur approach to divorce I think you could argue that confessing to not being adequately dressed in front of your daughter could be construed as sexual sin.
The husband’s subsequent conviction for sexual abuse of the daughter is definitely sexual sin but I’m not hearing them loud pedalling that.
Actually it’s almost like a serially unfaithful, failed businessman who wants to date his own daughter is their model for what marriage and sex should be!
You might regret leaving the SBC after you read this:
https://founders.org/2022/03/22/statement-from-southern-baptists-nominating-tom-ascol-and-voddie-baucham/
What could go wrong with Voddie Baucham leading the SBC Pastors’ Conference?
Oh brother! An atmosphere which would nominate either one of these fellows speaks to why I left SBC. If they are elected to SBC high offices it would be a clear indication that a once-great non-Calvinist evangelistic denomination is well on its way to being Calvinized. However, not sure that much more could go wrong with the SBC if they were. Calvinization is pretty much a done deal at this point, although millions of non-Calvinist Southern Baptists still don’t have a clue that this has happened. It’s the darnedest thing I’ve ever seen in my 70+ years as a Southern Baptist (I’m a “Done” now … done with SBC, but not done with Jesus).
Mr. Greitens is done … he just hasn’t quit yet. The former Navy Seal put his family through hell. Perhaps he should give up politics and go into the ministry … the institutional church will let anybody in these days.
Thomas,
You are welcome to debate politely, as you have here. However, if you want to make a better claim on your take on MacArthur, I would recommend that you do not encourage people to go to Protestia. You lose your argument at that moment. If you don’t know what I mean, you should.
Facts are still facts, regardless of who quotes them. You certainly have a right to your opinion, but not a right to your own “facts”.
Dear Tom Hill, I read as much of the Protestia blogpost as I could stand. It is a tremendous example of logical fallacies that contributes to the spiritual abuse of those who take it seriously. Their analysis seems to be, MacArthur and his associates didn’t know what is now been proven in a court of law. However, it is ignored that, not sufficiently knowing enough, they willfully and arrogantly proceeded with the public shaming and excommunication of Eileen Gray and her children. Thank you for your contribution to the illustration of how reasonable, Christians of good faith fall victim to the spiritually abusive and cultish practices of JM, JPiper, and countless others. The fact that you think Protestia shows an exoneration of MacArthur is telling indeed!
dee,
I have found that MacArthurites are some of the most brain-washed indoctrinated church folks on the planet. You can’t reason with them. In their world, JMac is the way, the truth and the life.
I have not set foot inside an SBC church in more than 4 years, but I haven’t withdrawn my membership. The election of either or both of those “men” would finalize it for me.
For 20 years, I’ve experienced women becoming more and more dehumanized in the SBC …….. this would be the last straw for me.
I didn’t leave the SBC – it left me.
Dear Mr. Hill,
I second Dee’s advice to you. The screeds on that site, which are completely absent of any evidence contrary to Julie’s, will do nothing to help your credibility.
Although I’m glad that someone pointed that site out to me last week. It was the perfect opportunity to post a few comments on the first article you linked to.
I even included a plug for TWW! Complete with directions to the permalink on “How to Resign From a Church”. And (minor miracle) the comment is still there. Here’s hoping it allows some poor benighted soul to escape the clutches of a controlling, cultish ‘church’. Maybe even from MacArthur’s!
This assumes all the facts are known. There is a reason why law courts have things such as discovery and cross examination. If MacArthur has exonerating facts on his side, he and his handlers are witholding them from public discussion. Why would they do that?
My priest taught the the scripture command to protect widows and orphans in the original Greek meant simply “women and children without the protection of a man” and who more fits that description than the spouse and children of an abuser? Scripture orders the Church to intervene and protect.
Thomas Hill,
Have you even read Julie Roys’ articles and the reams of documentation? *doubtful* I strongly suspect you take the Protestia position because you are a fanboy of John MacArthur. If you read all the links here in Dee’s post, you’ll see that MacArthur has been problematic (and I’m being nice here) for years in issues regarding women and sexual assault.
That means they are still counting you in their annual report to the State convention, along with those who have been dead for a while and folks who moved from the area. That’s modus operandi in SBC ranks. It’s a cardinal sin to toss members off the church roll. SBC purports 16 million members, but in my 70+ years experience with them, I figure the real membership is only about 8 million and half of those don’t show up much … thus, there are really only about 4 million active Southern Baptists in America and a bunch of them don’t know the Lord (baptized but not saved).
I suspect that Mr. Hill has his ears covered right now and singing loud so he can’t hear you.
So the story from the MacBoys shifts to he didn’t know he was guilty when MacArthur excommunicated the wife. So he was just wrong?
OK, where is the public and private apology? Where is the repentance and restoration?
Thomas Hill,
Thomas,
Welcome to the discussion. I hope you enjoy reading here as much as I have. You and I are most likely in the same camp. I am also reformed and complementarian. I have learned a lot from John MacArthur over the years.
That being said, I find on this website that the writers do a good job of exposing issues that should really alarm us. I know that there are two sides to every story but what I have seen over the years is that these men really appear to cover for each other. I used to think that modernism and liberal theology was the big threat to the church. I now see that there is much more going on. The “church” is destroying itself from within.
Dee, I love the photos and the quotations you put at the top of your posts. Thanks for ALL the work you do!!
I come near to crying when I think about the Body of Christ in different “camps.” I was young and now am old, and I’ve never witnessed such contention in the institutional church over the teachings and traditions of men. The church is indeed “destroying itself from within” by leaders who do not have the heart of God, nor love God’s children as they ought. My prayer continually these days is as Jesus prayed, that there will be no division in the Body of Christ, no competing theologies of men, no separation of clergy and laity, no distinctions of race, class or gender.
“I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one — as you are in me, Father, and I am in you” (Jesus, John 17:21).
I’ve got to believe that Jesus’ prayer will be answered before He returns.
The attack dogs are out:
https://youtu.be/o-LAEmXpC8c
Pastor Sam Powell, a Reformed pastor in California who “gets it,” wrote a thought-provoking blog entry in 2019 where he makes the case that STAYING in an abusive marriage where one is in fear for one’s life can be a sin. In brief, he talks about how abused spouses are sometimes told God will protect them if they stay in the marriage. (Tell that to the ones with broken ribs and black eyes.) And that someone far smarter than any of us answered the one who encouraged him to jump off the pinnacle of the temple by quoting Scripture: “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.” Anyway, it’s a great blog, and for those who haven’t seen it, here is the link: https://myonlycomfort.com/2019/06/26/divorce-and-tempting-god/
Thomas Hill,
I am scratching my head on this one. After slogging through all the initial attacks on the motivation and character of Joy Roys, the web posts you recommended, raise issues of timelines, and other potentially contrary narratives. O.K., I like to hear both sides on the story also, and am willing to consider the “other side”.
BUT, my respect for the quality of the info for the other side is GREATLY reduced when I have to wade through all that initial “stuff”. I do not need to read ANYTHING from Julie Roys to know I do not trust allot of what John MacArthur says… i have seen him say things that contradict his vary statements he made previously… and make incredibly ignorant statements about COVID. So, any statement about this current situation has low credibility in my book.
Consequently, I would really like to see well documented times lines, and docs on this latest situation. However, the blogs you suggest have no credibility in my book..
Another example of a type.
Elron Hubbard invented his religion for his own greedy purpose.
The Bible can be quoted for any purpose, as demonstrated by the enemy in the wilderness.
MacArthur and other churchmen like him are cruel men.
And what’s worse, is that they maintain that their god is just like them.
Mayhap he (MacArthur) should hire Denny Crane (William Shatner) and Alan Shore (James Spader) to do battle for him in court.
Going back to the article on ‘MacArthur’s Alleged Comments During a Meeting With Seminary Students’’
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2018/08/24/john-macarthurs-son-in-laws-alleged-compensation-for-video-production-and-macarthurs-alleged-comments-during-a-meeting-with-seminary-students/
20:15 “Someone said to me, ‘why did we have to find out about this probationary status on Facebook?’ I’m going to be real honest with you, you didn’t have any right to find out about anything. That’s not your responsibility.”
“MacArthur and other churchmen like him are cruel men.
And what’s worse, is that they maintain that their god is just like them.”
Muff,
I did not know that there were people who called themselves ‘Christian ministers’ who openly ‘excommunicated’ CHILDREN !!!
Children?
that WAS a surprise 🙁
JDV,
Classic example of information and emotional control.
Deliberately withhold pertinent information and then attempt to make a person feel like they are rebellious when they find out the information.
JDV,
But, keep putting your hard earned money in the offering plates! To me, this one of the key issues which keeps coming up…. These “leaders” live off donations, yet refuse to have financial, and in this case, other transparency/oversight..
I still can not get my hands around the number of churches, and “Christian orgs”that do not make their books open.. they really do think we are either suckers, or so far “below them” we do not deserve to know how our dollars are spent…
Look what keeps coming out about good old Ravi…. Donors dollars used to pay for his sexual exploits….
Psalm 50 NAS [God speaking here]
19 “You let your mouth loose in evil
And your tongue frames deceit.
20 “You sit and speak against your brother;
You slander your own mother’s son.
21 “These things you have done and I kept silence;
You thought that I was just like you;
I will reprove you and state the case in order before your eyes.”
I’m not a fan of The Message version of the Bible, but their interpretation of Psalms 50:19-21 paints the picture well:
“I kept a quiet patience while you did these things;
you thought I went along with your game.
I’m calling you on the carpet, now,
laying your wickedness out in plain sight.”
God is never in ‘our’ game … there is always a payday someday. Ask Hybels, Houston, Driscoll, Tullian, Ravi etc. etc.
And those guys have quite the game going. Quite the racket.
You wonder if they fear God.
Then you see scripture like this and realize that they are serving a different god than the One described in scripture.
I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes right now and especially when God finally does call them on the carpet.
… which is why they are preaching another gospel which is not the Gospel at all. You won’t find cheap grace, church as entertainment, or Christianity Lite in Scripture.
The longer I see bad folks operate in the church, the more I want to see swift earthly justice, in courts of law.
I was unaware – perhaps blissfully so – of the “Protestia” website until today. I suppose it is fitting that the site’s name is a made up word, created out of whole cloth, designed to sound educated and authoritative, to give an air of credibility to an otherwise sloppily designed and executed page. Just like the little bit of content I took the time to peruse.
Let us not forget how the MacArthurites Phil Johnson, Dan Phillips and Frank Turk gave platform, cover, aid and comfort to Thom Chantry over at Pyromaniacs.
Burwell Stark,
With my minor rant now out of the way, I will never understand the strong desire of the acolyte to defend his or her leader/teacher. Yes, that same drive is in me, as my pulse quickens and my drive to defend the honor of someone I respect or follow threatens to take over. In this instance, MacArthur has several writers on staff who could respond to Roys in a much more coherent way than David Morrill or JD Hall.
But the issue at hand is moot, isn’t it? David Gray is in jail and the facts are established. Or so I believe. So what is the disagreement here? That Roys said something “unkind” (i.e., established fact) about MacArthur and that CAN. NOT. STAND.? Either what Roys wrote can be proven or it can be disproven, that is all that matters. If it can be proven (and I believe it can), then the TMS posse should find another trail to mosey on down.
ION (an initialism written in honor of our very own Nick B.), I got a notification that the used copy of Frederick Buechner’s “The Magnificent Defeat” I ordered from Ebay is waiting on me at home. I look forward to opening it this weekend.
Sick, isn’t it.
Should be an incentive for requiring total transparency before giving … giving is complicit.
I think in the case of faithful teachers innocent of the charges against them, a strong defense is a sign of well-placed loyalty.
In other cases, followers of authoritarian leaders identify so strongly with the projected identity of the leader (in JM’s case the image he projects is of a brilliant teacher of Scripture sincerely attempting to follow God’s word in the midst of an apostate church and persecuting world) that attacks against the leader’s identity are viewed as attacks against the follower’s identity. These followers have taken on the projected identity of the leader – they see themselves as Biblically committed victims of persecution.
When evidence to the contrary is presented, it creates cognitive dissonance – JM can’t be both a venerable teacher and a cruel sociopath. The follower has a choice: retreat into the fantasy world of the projected image or follow the real world evidence. To follow the real world evidence is very, very hard – it may lead to a much more complex view of JM and the follower that threatens to pull the rug out from under the follower’s own identity.
When I left IHOP-KC, I had to follow the real world evidence regarding Mike Bickle. That was very, very hard. For a long time afterwards, I actually listened to hundreds of hours of JM teaching from GTY. When I was confronted with the evidence regarding JM, it was a little easier to see the reality because I had already learned not to identify quite as closely with another teacher/leader.
Let’s all have some grace and patience with anyone struggling with their own identity in the wake of the real world identity of JM.
Ava Aaronson,
Yup
This kind of church response to domestic violence and child abuse is very common among Evangelical churches. In my survivor groups, we talk about it a lot. People often go to their church for help first, and the church response can cause additional harm through spiritual abuse.
I’ve had friends who have tried “biblical counseling”, and the person who is oppressed tends to be blamed for the marriage problems. It happens so often that one of my personal boundaries is to require counselors to be state-licensed mental health professionals.
In my case, the church said to get counseling. I asked many licensed professionals, and they couldn’t do it while abuse was present. The church saw me as “unwilling” to work on the issues.
I’m confused. Are you saying that you recognize the drive to defend a leader, but you don’t understand the drive? If so, that makes sense.
Cynthia W.,
Yes. I don’t understand it but experience it myself.
And they are being conformed into the image of their god.
The Arrogance of God’s Special Pets.
Sounds like something out of Scientology.
Well, gee, if your husband is repeatedly threatening to kill you and himself, wouldn’t that be an example of “an unbelieving mate (who) does not desire to live with their spouse”?
Here is a link to a very disturbing writing from Jonathan Edwards that captures the grotesque nature of Calvinism with even more adverbs and adjectives than John Piper. If you can stand reading it, keep this writing in mind when you see people sporting their “Jonathan Edwards is My Home Boy” gear.
https://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/contemplated.htm
I should have included a link:
https://www.cafepress.com/livingwaterscom/6073601
Burwell Stark,
Okay, that’s clear. Thanks.
Ohhhhhkaaaay. I could not read the entire writing, but……….
Does “Jonathan Edwards is My Homeboy” translate to: “I can hardly wait to get my jollies watching people be tortured from my heavenly catbird seat”???
Yes, if they know of Edwards’ teachings. But I suspect most are unaware.
I think the young reformers get so caught up in the excitement of rebelling against the non-Calvinist faith of their fathers (e.g. SBC-YRRs), that they don’t really know the home boys they promote. Servetus wouldn’t be caught dead wearing a “Make Calvin Great Again” cap.
Yes, I doubt seriously that many NeoCal groupies know the dark teachings that were uttered by the heroes of their faith. All they know is that their mugs look good on a t-shirt … it’s cool to worship old dead guys.
I checked the link … I didn’t see any “Make Calvin Great Again” baseball caps … guess they haven’t thought of that yet. But there is a beer in his honor: https://www.thisdrinkinglife.com/calvinus-beer/
Max,
How about fake sternum-length Calvin beards?
“Calvin’s Press-on Beards!”
I agree. I was a very early listener of Grace to You (which began broadcasting in 1977). One morning in 1981 I was driving to work and listening to JMac. He related a story (won’t bother repeating it) in which his bullying tendency was on full display. I remember saying out loud, “That’s not right!”. I switched off the radio and never listened to him again.