MacArthur on SBC: “When you literally overturn the teaching of Scripture to empower people who want power, you have given up biblical authority”
“During the ‘Truth Matters Conference,’ held Oct. 16-18 at Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California, where he is pastor, MacArthur and other panelists were asked to give their gut reactions to one- or two-word phrases. Asked to respond to the phrase ‘Beth Moore,’ the name of a well-known Southern Baptist Bible teacher, MacArthur replied, ‘Go home.’” - RNS
- 42 views
I watched the video, Bert. Complaining about a series of insults with little basis in facts and then refusing to identify which statements you’re talking about is a complete cop-out. As far as I’m concerned, you’ve nullified your own complaint.
As for gripes about the site I linked to, I stated up front I wasn’t vouching for them. The point is what Beth Moore said. But you studiously avoid responding to that. You also completely ignored the second paragraph of my most recent comment.
If you’re going to cast aspersions on John MacArthur while defending Beth Moore (!), stand up and walk us through the details of your criticisms and your factual support for each, and then respond point by point to the push back you get. Otherwise, you’re just talking smack. Go somewhere else and do that where you can have your own echo chamber instead of wasting our time.
That Reformation Charlotte article is exactly the kind of thing that proves MacArthur’s critics (of whom I am one) right. There’s no substance there - it’s simply angry ranting and incessant name-calling instead of rational disagreement. Frankly, I think that Wilson, Johnson, Ascol and the others that are so upset about this are doing the best job of illustrating the problems in their view of complementarianism, so I largely sit back and refer to them as appropriate. The RC article just adds more evidence to the view that there are some very strange and misogynistic ideas in certain corners of “complementarianism”.
These two articles, on the other hand, are excellent and well worth your time:
A Response to John MacArthur and an Appeal for Common Courtesy
How to Turn Conservative Evangelicals into Egalitarians
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Joel, I wonder if there is any room for someone to disagree with you on how a particular thing might be applied without being accused of slander, lying, etc.? Even a misunderstanding wouldn’t rise to that level of charge, would it?
The FBFI just decided to link to an article from Pulpit & Pen, that wretched sewer of the Reformed internet, about Karen Prior’s recent hire at SEBTS. Feast your eyes on this title: “SEBTS Hires Gay Affirming Feminist Who Says ‘Abortion Isn’t Murder’ to Teach at SBC Seminary.”
Here is P&P’s original article.
The internet can be a great place. It can also be an outlet for the most vile, hate-filled and despicable conduct. This is the latter, and the FBFI ought to be ashamed. It is unworthy of your organization. Or perhaps it is …
Shameful! I will continue to steer any and every Christian I meet (young, old and in-between) away this toxic conception of Christian life and practice.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
…but not all that shocking. By their fruits you shall know them, Tyler.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Since you raised the issue of Moore calling MacArthur a misogynist, I wanted to link to her tweet directly.
And for those who may not want to click on the link, this is what she said:
Hey, y’all. Let’s cool it on the slander toward JMac et al. Doesn’t honor God. Let’s move on.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Bert, I don’t often get on SI to comment. Too much hate on here. Bert, according the scripture you are wrong about the usage of language. No corrupt communication should come out of my mouth or yours. So no place for a Christian to use vulgar or obscene language allowed for the child of God. As far as calling a minister of the gospel a BIG MOUTH, I still stand by my words-just misses the taste of the fruit of the spirit.
This is my last word on the subject. Seriously swallowing a gnat, I don’t think so. If I remember correctly, my Lord said something about our words and being judged by them. I love good discussions of truth. I love good debates. Your words were designed to shame me. I refuse to be shamed.
Jay, I’m not sure whether you’re missing the point or purposely being obtuse or misleading. Yes, what you quote was Moore’s early morning response to the kerfuffle. (And good for her on that one.) By that afternoon, however, her tone had changed significantly and she accused MacArthur (and all complementarians) of misogyny. Her words:
Really busy work day so I’m just now able to follow this up. Believe me, you guys, I’m not talking about cooling it on the issues. Misogyny is rampant & shameful. I’m talking about not returning insult for insult. What Jesus called us to do in a case like this is HARD but right.
So her version of not returning insult for insult is to say MacArthur (and anyone who agrees with him about women preaching and/or Beth Moore’s overstepping biblical boundaries) isn’t just wrong or misunderstanding something, but hates women. That’s a bald-faced lie, and she knows it. But that’s the politically correct, “woke” defense to every disagreement: I’m not going to prove my case from scripture, I’m going to accuse you of hating all women, or all minorities, or whatever. It’s bollocks.
How about you defend the tweet I pointed to instead of the one I didn’t point to?
[TylerR]The FBFI just decided to link to an article from Pulpit & Pen, that wretched sewer of the Reformed internet, about Karen Prior’s recent hire at SEBTS. Feast your eyes on this title: “SEBTS Hires Gay Affirming Feminist Who Says ‘Abortion Isn’t Murder’ to Teach at SBC Seminary.”
Here is P&P’s original article.
The internet can be a great place. It can also be an outlet for the most vile, hate-filled and despicable conduct. This is the latter, and the FBFI ought to be ashamed. It is unworthy of your organization. Or perhaps it is …
Shameful! I will continue to steer any and every Christian I meet (young, old and in-between) away this toxic conception of Christian life and practice.
Tyler, That SEBTS division of English and Christianity & Culture is of major concern to me. They are one of the sources of Prop 9 that MacArthur talked about, having promoted CRT in evangelicalism for a while now.
So what is your view of Prior?
[dmyers]I’m not sure whether you’re missing the point or purposely being obtuse or misleading.
Dmyers, what a great statement. I have thought that about several people here at SI! :-)
The tweet in question never references MacArthur at all. Beth specifically mentions “the issues” and then refers to “misogyny” a moment later. She also explicitly denies the validity of “returning insult for insult”.
You can freak out and read shots at MacArthur into the tweet, or you can read what was actually written:
Really busy work day so I’m just now able to follow this up. Believe me, you guys, I’m not talking about cooling it on the issues. Misogyny is rampant & shameful. I’m talking about not returning insult for insult. What Jesus called us to do in a case like this is HARD but right.
And as others have said, MacArthur misrepresented Resolution 9 to his audience. What he said it was is untrue but what a lot of random people believe it to be. Read the text of Resolution 9. I have read it, disagree with it, and would have voted against it but I am not going to lie about what it says.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I think you meant Joeb, not Bert. Joeb was the one who insulted MacArthur on this thread and should repent or have his post removed.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Paul Henebury posted several tweets with Beth Moore quotations. I haven’t seen anybody deny those statements in this discussions. Assuming they are accurate, I fail to see how any Bible believer can continue to defend Beth Moore. She’s dangerous. Arguing about the tone of Mac Arthur’s rebuke is really beside the point. If she said what’s she quoted as saying, somebody needs to sound the alarm, and alarms need to be loud in order to get people’s attention. You don’t say “Fire!” in a soft, sweet tone of voice.
G. N. Barkman
My life is very crazy this week so I’m choosing to respond to the three of you at the same time because some of your questions and assertions overlap.
#1. The issue of MacArthur lying or slandering or misrepresenting. Looking back, I should’ve added the word misunderstanding to the list as well. But, when a person with the clout and authority that MacArthur wields among certain conservative Christian evangelicals and Fundamentalists and he gets the most basic fact wrong about Resolution 9 dealing with CT/CRT/Intersectionality-which he related to the American Christian Evangelical’s fascination with Social Justice-which he claims is the greatest threat to the church today, and does not correct himself, I don’t know how to categorize it, which is why I gave several options-but he’s developing a negative pattern here. I’ve already written about MacArthur’s shallow misrepresentations of social justice, which he seems to get basic facts wrong here https://sharperiron.org/comment/102765#comment-102765 and here. https://sharperiron.org/comment/102874#comment-102874 But no matter how easily it is prove MacArthur’s assertions false, he gets a free pass and people on this thread still look to his authority and leadership even when he’s wrong. Again, I found it quite ironic that at a conference on Truth, he doesn’t even know the truth about Resolution 9 and the SBC.
#2. Southern Baptist Seminary Profs on Video using language similar to CT, CRT. Yes I did watch the video on the 3 profs the first day it came out late in August. And then I spot-revisited it when DMyers posted it. Again its terrible journalism when there is no context to the buzz word terms that are used. For example, what do these profs mean when they use the word “White Privilege?” Are they using it in a descriptive sense, which Dr. Neil Shenvi asserts is not problematic and/or against Scripture, or are they using it in a prescriptive sense, which finds itself completely immersed in the muck of the street-level Critical Theory that has crept into politics, churches, and educational institutions? https://shenviapologetics.com/an-antiracism-glossary-white-privilege/ Same for the buzzwords social justice, oppression, whiteness, and etc… One cannot assume that they are drawing from the well of CT because there are multiple people and ideologies from the past 200 years that have used the same language. For example, if you read deeply of Fredrick Douglas, you will find many similar terms and similar ideas, but without any of the secular baggage of CT. If you want a great source for Douglas read this biography. https://www.amazon.com/Frederick-Douglass-David-W-Blight/dp/1416590315/…
Again, you can’t follow the MacArthur way and bring your own bias and meaning into their speeches and texts and interpret their words so subjectively, which leads to the massive straw men that MacArthur has created. As I summarized before, MacArthur would do well to use his hermeneutical skills that he uses in interpreting the Bible if he also used those same methods when attempting to figure out what these conservative evangelical authors who talk about social and racial justice actually mean. As for Neil Shenvi’s view of Matthew Hall’s video, I checked on that as well earlier before you asked and could only find one tweet. You’ll notice from the tweet that I cut and pasted part of his response in my first response to you. https://twitter.com/NeilShenvi/status/1156553399497830400
Mark Smith, my questions for you as you study CRT, how are you studying CRT? Original sources? Secondary Sources? Whatever it may be, how are you planning on avoiding the misunderstandings and misrepresentations that MacArthur and others have done in their sloppy, biased research? But I would also recommend Neil Shenvi as well. https://shenviapologetics.com/topics/. Another person I’d recommend is Bradley Mason. He has a different take than Shenvi, but both of them are conservative evangelicals that have done more research than anyone out there. They even debate each other, although I feel at times they talk past each other. Mason believes that Shenvi is misrepresenting CT and CRT at the scholarly level (which I’d agree). However, I feel Mason is underselling what CT and CRT has morphed into at the street level. Anyway, here is Mason’s site to check out. https://alsoacarpenter.com.
Jim, what you’re doing is re-stating your opinion without introducing any new evidence, or really any evidence at all. I am fully aware that a major interpretation of Ephesians 4:29 and the like is to avoid Anglo-Saxon verbiage, or (your position) that even calling someone “scum” qualifies. However, I simply cannot reconcile that notion with the fact that Christ, the Prophets, John the Baptist, and the Apostles repeatedly used some pretty blunt language to describe the Pharisees, Israel, and the like. For that matter, if I turn back a few pages, I find Galatians 5:12, where Paul mockingly suggests the Judiazers might do well to castrate themselves altogether.
There is a core meaning to those verses, Jim, but it’s not what you suggest.
And—H/T or “sigh of the chest” to Tyler—that’s another big issue with Pulpit and Pen. Notice that they don’t directly quote or link what Swallow-Prior actually says, but merely put the worst spin possible on their interpretation of it. That’s also what some are doing with Beth Moore’s “misogyny” comment. Notice that she doesn’t specifically call anyone misogynistic, but rather notes simply that it’s real and horrendous.
Now perhaps that’s a veiled, passive-aggressive kind of thing on her part directed specifically at MacArthur, but the more likely conclusion is that she’s dealing with a parasite swarm on Twitter that is saying a bunch of misogynistic things.
One side note; it’s very interesting to see people see an implicit insult by Moore when she refers to misogyny without making any direct accusation, but when John MacArthur implies without evidence that what she wants is power, they’re silent. Seems we have a couple different standards of evidence going on here.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion