MacArthur on SBC: “When you literally overturn the teaching of Scripture to empower people who want power, you have given up biblical authority”

[TylerR]

The best thing for all of us to do is separate from Baylor and from every compromiser who dares to have his photograph disgrace that image (heh, heh) …

Clearly I’ll have to block the radio stations which broadcast Tony Evans and Alistair Begg in my area. Not only that, but I’m sure the church will have to publish a resolution. That’ll teach em!

Joel, I appreciate the link to Resolution 9. To me, it’s obviously a compromise resolution, giving advocates of CRT some statements they can point to for justifying whatever use they want to put the theory to, while also giving opponents statements they can point to for telling the advocates that they’re going beyond Res 9.

Um…..How can you make a judgment about it being a compromising resolution when you don’t even deal with any of the specific points? That is why I actually linked Neil Shenvi’s response to it, because he doesn’t make unproven generalizations but specifically addresses the document. Did you take the time to read the Shenvi link? If you’ve ever read any of Neil Shenvi’s writings, he and his writing partner Dr. Patrick Sawyer are both researchers, scholars, and fierce opponents of CRT, CT, and etc… And yet they didn’t see compromising aspects to Resolution 9. You’re coming across quite subjective in why you think that the resolution is a compromising document.

Given that CRT is today’s cultural and theologically liberal fad, and given that kowtowing to political correctness never ends well, I would have enthusiastically voted against the Resolution if I were a delegate (or messenger). It strikes me as being very unwise — opening the door to further abuse and misuse by those who don’t think Res 9 went far enough in affirming CRT. Reviewing the above video of three SBC seminary professors/administrators seems to me to demonstrate that certain persons in the SBC are already going beyond what Res 9 authorizes. The SBC is going to have to revisit the issue; hopefully they’ll do a better job next time. I started to write that the proponents of CRT in the SBC are probably inevitably going to go too far and then get shut down more completely, but that may be too optimistic.

2 to 5 minute clips of these 3 SBTS professors without much context to their talks is terrible way to prove that they are influenced by CRT. Its just bad journalism because it allows the viewer (like yourself) to establish what they meant rather than doing all the grunt work to discover the speaker’s intent in the video. On a side note, I find it quite hypocritical that we follow a high standard of hermeneutical guidelines in interpreting scripture by doing the hard work of establishing authorial intent, but are extremely sloppy and subjective with hardly any research when we attempt to describe what the authors meant in these videos. By the way, I am more familiar with Curtis Woods and Jarvis Williams than I am with Matthew Hall because I’ve read both journal articles and blog articles from both of them. But as an example of this, lets look at the first video cut of Matthew Hall where he states he struggles with racism and White Supremacy and will continue to struggle with these sins until he dies. On a surface level, many anti-SJ Christians see this as a prime example of CRT influence because they assumed and criticized Hall for acting “Woke” or Hall believing he is somehow trapped because of his whiteness in a cycle of “White-Guilt” for his privilege and oppressive status. Without any context along with a MacArthur-influenced bias from the viewer, it would be quite easy to make such a shallow assumption. But the fact of the matter is, because of our shared identity with Adam, we struggle with sin. And because racism is a sin, there will be an inclination towards the sin of racism, or pride, or sexual immorality, and the list goes on…in every fallen human heart. To find out if he is actually influenced by CRT, there needs to be an important question asked. Does he also believe that People of Color can also struggle with the sin of racism their entire lives as well? If Hall denies, for example, that black Christian folks could ever be racist or struggle with the sin of racism throughout their lives, then he’s compromised the doctrine of sin and adopted a dangerous CRT worldview when it comes to these cultural issues. Right now, there’s not enough information given to reach the conclusion that the video is attempting to make. Again, bad journalism.

Also, the person who strung these videos together, Trevor Loudon, is a far-right political conspiracy theorist (who believed that Obama was a closet communist) not a person who has done any serious research on CRT. In contrast, what I like about Neil Shenvi/Patrick Sawyer is that they really go the distance with the research and attempt to be fair without all the logical fallacies that normally accompany many of the anti-social justice Christian leaders such as MacArthur, Johnson, Ascol, Buck, Wilson, and etc….

JOEB, I can appreciate your passion for those who have been abused. I can not be silent and let you use unbiblical and ungoldy language in the post. All caps, BIG MOUTH MCARTHUR is in my opinion unbecoming of a servant of the Lord who must be gentle. I encourage you to stay passionate. I encourage you to use language that reflects the fruit of God’s Holy Spirit.

[TylerR]

The best thing for all of us to do is separate from Baylor and from every compromiser who dares to have his photograph disgrace that image (heh, heh) …

My thought is that the best reason to separate from Baylor is not having Moore speak, but rather the tolerance of sexual assault that their sportsball programs exhibited a few years back. Hopefully not any more, but I’ve not been watching their debacle the way I’ve been watching the (deleted for Jim Welch’s sake, smile, J/K Jim) at my alma mater, Michigan State.

A serious thought regarding Jim Welch’s comment; Joe was talking about the regrettable pattern among many leaders, including too many in conservative evangelicalism, of brushing aside some very serious criminal issues for the sake of maintaining a facade of respectability. If we’re more concerned about using ALL CAPS or calling someone “scum”, we seriously need to change our perspective. Also worth noting is that those ministering to victims, or the loved ones of victims, will do well to let some emphatic or even obscene language slide. Diverting the discussion from super-serious crimes to “watch your language” would seem to be a Matthew 23:24 moment.

If you want to know why Moore is so popular instead of griping about her popularity, here is the reason in a nutshell:

The specific book I’m reading is “Get out of that pit”, and in it, she shows that she “gets” that people are hurting. This makes sense in a world where about 2/3 of young people eventually live in a home where Mom and Dad are not together, where 1/4 of young people are sexually abused, and where the 2/3 of young people who aren’t made to get a bachelor’s degree often face a horrible time in the job market—and where those who are fit for a BA or BS often end up with crippling student loans.

Beth Moore is popular because she speaks to issues that most women have dealt with all of their lives and men haven’t or discount if they do. Frankly, if some of our pastors understood that and had the kind of hesed love for their sheep that Beth has for her supporters, we probably wouldn’t need to have this conversation at all.

Moore to the point (groan)…while I understand MacArthur’s opposition to women preachers and agree with him that the office of pastor / elder is off limits to women, the entire thing seemed much more designed like an opportunity designed to take shots at everyone’s favorite whipping girl than a serious discussion of anything in particular. I thought Johnson’s description of Moore as “narcissistic” was rich with irony, and that MacArthur’s remarks about selling wares on TV was completely uncalled for.

I am also concerned about what seems like a drift from “Unleashing God’s Truth, One Verse at a Time” to something that is increasingly driven by a pugnacious tendency to engage with every possible threat to Christianity in general. I know what GTY was built on because I’ve been a fan of theirs since the early aughts. It’s not at all the vibe that I get now from Sun Valley and they seem to be distracted from their original focus on systematic bible exposition, which is terribly disappointing.

I am not aware of the SBC’s issue with Gilyard; but if what you say is true (& I have no reason to doubt it), the man is not to be trusted to have a pulpit or pastoral gospel ministry.

I am still waiting to see how the MacArthur issue turns out. Clearly no one is accusing Mac of sexual sin. I will reserve judgment on how he did or did not handle the rape accusations at Masters.

Beth Moore is a known by now. She can be judged by her words. So, I don’t want to get in a “which is the greater sin” arguement. You are absolutely correct about Gilyard. Not sure that John MacArthur needs to be shut down just yet. Thanks

[Joel Shaffer]

Mark, did you just prove my point by demonstrating your willingness to tolerate MacArthur’s lies, slanders, and misrepresentations on a topic where he knows very little about? And since you speak in such broad-brush generalities, what are some specific examples of CRT ideology among Southern Baptists that you see as foolishness or not Biblical?

Certainly not.

You think the CRT Resolution is fine and useful for race relations. I think it is a back door to changing biblical interpretation and Christians have no business using it for any reason whatsoever. It was a resolution that came out of nowhere. No one knew anything about it when it showed up at the SBC convention for approval. Most people were looking at each other and asking what is CRT? Since then I have studied CRT to a reasonable extent and I know it serves no purpose other than deconstructing Western civilization, and the Bible’s role in that.

Furthermore, you split hairs over Mac’s interpretation of the resolution. That is not the same as “Mac is a lair and a deceiver.” I think you are taking it too far.

Jim, Darrell Gilyard was something of a protege of Paige Patterson’s until the weight of his sexual offenses (including at least one sexual assault that landed him in prison) became too much. Whether, or how long, Patterson tolerated this while knowing is a hot subject of debate.

Regarding MacArthur this way, the worst allegations I’ve heard have to do with handling of Title IX reports, including one where reportedly a student was expelled with a 0.0GPA after 3 years of As for the “crime” of not confessing to infractions of student code after being raped. Have not seen the grade reports/transcript/etc.. to verify or deny this. These allegations are at least tangentially related to the accreditation issues with The Master’s College centering around whether students have adequate support and whether trustees are adequately independent of MacArthur.

But back to the subject, my biggest concern is related to your comment on the language used; in the case with Moore, and in the case Joel mentions, MacArthur seems to be making some rather reckless accusations and outright insults. We should be troubled.

[Joel Shaffer]

Um…..How can you make a judgment about it being a compromising resolution when you don’t even deal with any of the specific points? That is why I actually linked Neil Shenvi’s response to it, because he doesn’t make unproven generalizations but specifically addresses the document. Did you take the time to read the Shenvi link? If you’ve ever read any of Neil Shenvi’s writings, he and his writing partner Dr. Patrick Sawyer are both researchers, scholars, and fierce opponents of CRT, CT, and etc… And yet they didn’t see compromising aspects to Resolution 9. You’re coming across quite subjective in why you think that the resolution is a compromising document.

Given that CRT is today’s cultural and theologically liberal fad, and given that kowtowing to political correctness never ends well, I would have enthusiastically voted against the Resolution if I were a delegate (or messenger). It strikes me as being very unwise — opening the door to further abuse and misuse by those who don’t think Res 9 went far enough in affirming CRT. Reviewing the above video of three SBC seminary professors/administrators seems to me to demonstrate that certain persons in the SBC are already going beyond what Res 9 authorizes. The SBC is going to have to revisit the issue; hopefully they’ll do a better job next time. I started to write that the proponents of CRT in the SBC are probably inevitably going to go too far and then get shut down more completely, but that may be too optimistic.

2 to 5 minute clips of these 3 SBTS professors without much context to their talks is terrible way to prove that they are influenced by CRT. Its just bad journalism because it allows the viewer (like yourself) to establish what they meant rather than doing all the grunt work to discover the speaker’s intent in the video. On a side note, I find it quite hypocritical that we follow a high standard of hermeneutical guidelines in interpreting scripture by doing the hard work of establishing authorial intent, but are extremely sloppy and subjective with hardly any research when we attempt to describe what the authors meant in these videos. By the way, I am more familiar with Curtis Woods and Jarvis Williams than I am with Matthew Hall because I’ve read both journal articles and blog articles from both of them. But as an example of this, lets look at the first video cut of Matthew Hall where he states he struggles with racism and White Supremacy and will continue to struggle with these sins until he dies. On a surface level, many anti-SJ Christians see this as a prime example of CRT influence because they assumed and criticized Hall for acting “Woke” or Hall believing he is somehow trapped because of his whiteness in a cycle of “White-Guilt” for his privilege and oppressive status. Without any context along with a MacArthur-influenced bias from the viewer, it would be quite easy to make such a shallow assumption. But the fact of the matter is, because of our shared identity with Adam, we struggle with sin. And because racism is a sin, there will be an inclination towards the sin of racism, or pride, or sexual immorality, and the list goes on…in every fallen human heart. To find out if he is actually influenced by CRT, there needs to be an important question asked. Does he also believe that People of Color can also struggle with the sin of racism their entire lives as well? If Hall denies, for example, that black Christian folks could ever be racist or struggle with the sin of racism throughout their lives, then he’s compromised the doctrine of sin and adopted a dangerous CRT worldview when it comes to these cultural issues. Right now, there’s not enough information given to reach the conclusion that the video is attempting to make. Again, bad journalism.

Also, the person who strung these videos together, Trevor Loudon, is a far-right political conspiracy theorist (who believed that Obama was a closet communist) not a person who has done any serious research on CRT. In contrast, what I like about Neil Shenvi/Patrick Sawyer is that they really go the distance with the research and attempt to be fair without all the logical fallacies that normally accompany many of the anti-social justice Christian leaders such as MacArthur, Johnson, Ascol, Buck, Wilson, and etc….

Shenvi’s post is very good. He simply has more confidence than I that those who refer to Res 9 in the future are going to do so in good faith or objectively. It’s good to know that there are people out there like Shenvi who can help us respond to those who will attempt to use Res 9 improperly as an endorsement of CRT (or CT, as Shenvi refers to it). I didn’t recite all the specific provisions of the resolution because I thought it was pretty obvious which ones were intended to provide the “fencing” around the use of CRT. In any event, my comment wasn’t a factual one; I was giving my opinion or analysis, with which anyone is free to disagree.

I’d be very interested to know if Shenvi has interacted with either the YouTube video of the three SBC seminary professors, or if he has interacted with any of those professors’ statements directly. If he has, could you post a relevant link here? In the absence of such, I’d invite anyone to view that video to see if it seems likely that the professors’ statements are being presented unfairly. Your description isn’t accurate — each clip goes on noticeably longer than typical “hit” pieces, I think in an effort to avoid being accused of being less than full statements or taken out of context. And there are multiple clips of each professor. You assume the clips are unfair, but you don’t provide any evidence that they were. Did the professors complain they were being misrepresented? Did they explain how? Have you viewed the entire video of the sources of the clips to see if the professors were actually saying something different than what the clips presents? If not, you’re just speculating. I’m reacting to what they’ve actually said; you’re complaining on the basis of something else you hope they said.

I don’t know anything about Loudon or his organization, Enemies Within. Being an Obama critic isn’t a negative to me. And like I said, if your guy Shenvi has weighed in on this video, directly or indirectly, I’d love to know his thoughts.

[Bert Perry]

A serious thought regarding Jim Welch’s comment; Joe was talking about the regrettable pattern among many leaders, including too many in conservative evangelicalism, of brushing aside some very serious criminal issues for the sake of maintaining a facade of respectability. If we’re more concerned about using ALL CAPS or calling someone “scum”, we seriously need to change our perspective. Also worth noting is that those ministering to victims, or the loved ones of victims, will do well to let some emphatic or even obscene language slide. Diverting the discussion from super-serious crimes to “watch your language” would seem to be a Matthew 23:24 moment.

This has my head spinning a little. Joe’s extremely strong language against MacArthur is just fine and shouldn’t become more important than the underlying issue he’s addressing, but MacArthur’s simple “go home” IS the story and he’s to be condemned for having said it? Am I missing something that doesn’t make this a black and white example of a double standard?

And now apparently Beth Moore has called MacArthur a misognyist (note: I’m not endorsing the source site):

https://reformationcharlotte.org/2019/10/24/beth-moore-calls-john-macar…

You’re missing a bunch, dmyers. The major knock against MacArthur is not (or at least should not be) that he used strong language. It is that what he said was a series of insults with little basis in fact.

On the flip side, what Joe said, in light of what MacArthur clearly did, is strong language, but has a basis in fact.

To put things gently, Ephesians 4:29 and other verses regulating our speech do need to be read in context of Prophets, Apostles, and Christ Himself referring to people as “whitewashed tombs”, “brood of vipers”, “adulterers”, “cows of Bashan”, and the like. What matters seems to be not whether we use ALL CAPS (like the Alexandrian manuscripts of the NT) or suggest that someone’s in need of a filter on one’s mouth, but rather whether what comes out is true and worth saying.

OK, now you’ve lost me. What “series of insults with little basis in facts”? If you’re talking about the various statements paraphrased in the RNS article, which ones do you contend were insults without factual basis?

As far as “what MacArthur clearly did,” are we talking about his “go home” comment or about the failure-to-report-abuse allegations Joe addressed? If the latter, Joe provided no links or citations to demonstrate that MacArthur “clearly did” (or didn’t do) anything. Do you have any such evidence/proof? Or is the issue still being investigated/adjudicated so that you and Joe are assuming a conclusion before it’s proven one way or the other? These are genuine questions, because I’m completely unfamiliar with the situation(s) Joe is talking about.

The attitude on display from that Reformation Charlotte article is despicable. The sychophants on both sides are disgusting. What a horror show this is, just in time for Halloween.

Dmyers, watch the video. It’s linked from the original article. If you can’t figure out where he’s being reckless, I’m not going to be able to help you.

For further examples of reckless, vicious accusations, take another look at “Reformation Charlotte”. Again, if you can’t see how this would be rightly seen as reckless or objectionable, again, I cannot help you.