Memo to the Old, Grumpy and Reformed: "Am to be impugned as worldly because I have a beer once and awhile?"
Memo to the Old, Grumpy and Reformed: You are Swinging and Missing Response to Beer, Bohemianism, and True Christian Liberty Specifically John MacArthur’s reference to this blog post: A Beer-Only Fast During Lent
- 66 views
From the comments on the original article.
[Shaynus]Good persuasion seeks to first understand the audience, and JMac failed to do that well. Matched with his tone, he has turned off men on this subject who otherwise respect him. The Ordinary Pastor blog is a good critique of the critique.
It looks like Dr. MacArthur wrote the article about a general teed-off feeling, then had an intern look up links to prove his point. This is the kind of stuff that’s going to make YRR types not listen to him, and that’s unfortunate. This reminds me of the whole “Darrin Patrick makes up his own theology” cerfuffle a few months ago.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/01/25/darrin-patr…
MacArthur misunderstands the writings of an A29 guy, jumps to conclusions, ticks people off, they don’t listen to him. Repeat.
Shayne
John MacArthur has been preaching this way since “ordinary pastor” was a toddler. But, I guess YRRs were too young to be offended then, so they’ll get offended now. There’s nothing new here. John MacArthur has had this view for the entire lifetime of YRRs. His recent blog post was simply an abridged version of what he’s always taught, only this time he updated it with an illustration of beer instead of wine and he had the additional tool of using the internet to do that. YRRs should be impressed; this seemed like a contextualization of his 30+ years old messages.
Here are the sermons from 1978
http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/1936_Be-Not-Drunk-with-Wine-Part-1…
http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/1937_Be-Not-Drunk-with-Wine-Part-2…
http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/1938_Be-Not-Drunk-with-Wine-Part-3…
Oh, and they come complete with study guides
http://www.gty.org/resources/Study+Guide+Chapter/1936_Be-Not-Drunk-with…
http://www.gty.org/resources/Study+Guide+Chapter/1937_Be-Not-Drunk-with…
http://www.gty.org/resources/Study+Guide+Chapter/1938_Be-Not-Drunk-with…
Here’s a quote from sermon #2
Here are the sermons from 1978
http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/1936_Be-Not-Drunk-with-Wine-Part-1…
http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/1937_Be-Not-Drunk-with-Wine-Part-2…
http://www.gty.org/resources/Sermons/1938_Be-Not-Drunk-with-Wine-Part-3…
Oh, and they come complete with study guides
http://www.gty.org/resources/Study+Guide+Chapter/1936_Be-Not-Drunk-with…
http://www.gty.org/resources/Study+Guide+Chapter/1937_Be-Not-Drunk-with…
http://www.gty.org/resources/Study+Guide+Chapter/1938_Be-Not-Drunk-with…
Here’s a quote from sermon #2
The Bible does not say wine is forbidden, but it does say some things that help us to know what we should do.
Robert Hughes coined a phrase some years ago with the title of his book “The Culture of Compliant.” His premise was America is a nation of multiculturalists and each group is perpetually offended at other groups that don’t share its views. There’s a lot of truth to this thought. However, it may be more accurate to state that America is collection of 308 million perpetually-offended multiculturalists, and now each “offendee” has a blog to list his or her complaints.
If Erik Raymond is truly a long-time fan of John MacArthur, he shouldn’t be surprised that MacArthur is against alcohol in all of its forms and is not afraid to say so. This blog entry, which could be called “I’m Offended at John MacArthur,” reminds this writer of what one rather prominient radio personality describes as a “seminar caller.” Every Sunday MacArthur steps behind the pulpit and in a straighforward manner tells his audience, “This is what the Bible says. Deal with it!” That’s why I like him. He can get away with saying things that I can’t say.
Sadly, perhaps Reformed Theology is now “the flavor of the day.” John MacArthur was the flavor of the day back in the mid-Eighties. Oswald Chambers, Charles Stanley, Larry Crabb, and Bruce Wilkinson were once the flavors of the day. It may well be that in a year or two those Mark Driscoll seminar notes and Al Mohler’s “He Is Not Silent” will be gathering dust on Erik’s shelf next to “The Prayer of Jabez” and “Inside Out.”
Who knows? Maybe A.W. Tozer will make a comeback? Then the “Young, Restless and Reformed” crowd will become “A Little Older, Still Restless, and Arminian.”
By the way, I’ve more-or-less given up blogging. Three people read our blog, and two of them are the writers.
If Erik Raymond is truly a long-time fan of John MacArthur, he shouldn’t be surprised that MacArthur is against alcohol in all of its forms and is not afraid to say so. This blog entry, which could be called “I’m Offended at John MacArthur,” reminds this writer of what one rather prominient radio personality describes as a “seminar caller.” Every Sunday MacArthur steps behind the pulpit and in a straighforward manner tells his audience, “This is what the Bible says. Deal with it!” That’s why I like him. He can get away with saying things that I can’t say.
Sadly, perhaps Reformed Theology is now “the flavor of the day.” John MacArthur was the flavor of the day back in the mid-Eighties. Oswald Chambers, Charles Stanley, Larry Crabb, and Bruce Wilkinson were once the flavors of the day. It may well be that in a year or two those Mark Driscoll seminar notes and Al Mohler’s “He Is Not Silent” will be gathering dust on Erik’s shelf next to “The Prayer of Jabez” and “Inside Out.”
Who knows? Maybe A.W. Tozer will make a comeback? Then the “Young, Restless and Reformed” crowd will become “A Little Older, Still Restless, and Arminian.”
By the way, I’ve more-or-less given up blogging. Three people read our blog, and two of them are the writers.
Shayne writes,
The Ordinary Pastor blog is a good critique of the critique.
No it wasn’t. It was self-serving. The guy basically said that John dishonestly wrote that post up for the purposes of stirring up the Fundamentalists. Which is to say John has some other motive at hand other than a genuine pastoral concern about a troubling element within the YRR.
The Ordinary Pastor blog is a good critique of the critique.
No it wasn’t. It was self-serving. The guy basically said that John dishonestly wrote that post up for the purposes of stirring up the Fundamentalists. Which is to say John has some other motive at hand other than a genuine pastoral concern about a troubling element within the YRR.
[Fred Butler] Shayne writes,Did it fire up the fundamentalists? It seems it did. Never did he say Dr. M was being dishonest, just that he was factually wrong, used sweeping generalizations, and poor rhetoric. Genuine pastoral concerns are great. But if MacArthur wants to be heard, he should know his audience better.
The Ordinary Pastor blog is a good critique of the critique.
No it wasn’t. It was self-serving. The guy basically said that John dishonestly wrote that post up for the purposes of stirring up the Fundamentalists. Which is to say John has some other motive at hand other than a genuine pastoral concern about a troubling element within the YRR.
“If your opponent wouldn’t agree with the accuracy of your statement about their beliefs, then you should not say it.” - Tim Keller
Update from GTY: http://www.gty.org/blog/B110815#.TkqOToLAyso
Just in case you missed John’s point in the dust-up (not only in our comment thread, but in other playgrounds as well), here it is: It’s irresponsible and wrong for YRR leaders to make beer/wine-drinking one of the badges of the YRR movement. That’s it. So, if that shoe fits you, wear it; If it doesn’t, let it pass.
Never did he say Dr. M was being dishonest, just that he was factually wrong, used sweeping generalizations, and poor rhetoric. Genuine pastoral concerns are great. But if MacArthur wants to be heard, he should know his audience better.
Shayne,
Did you miss the whole section when he compared John’s comments to the 2004 speech by Zell Miller at the Republican convention? He then claimed Zell’s speech was “red meat” for Republicans and filled with nothing but mischaracterizations that were “easily refuted.” In essence, he is saying John’s post is the same thing. Which means to say John is being dishonest with his accusations. They aren’t meant to actually address a serious concern John has about the younger generation, but only meant for the sole purpose of whipping up Fundies.
Of course, you say he was “factually wrong, used sweeping generalizations, and poor rhetoric” but no one has yet to prove this claim. Give me some examples.
Shayne,
Did you miss the whole section when he compared John’s comments to the 2004 speech by Zell Miller at the Republican convention? He then claimed Zell’s speech was “red meat” for Republicans and filled with nothing but mischaracterizations that were “easily refuted.” In essence, he is saying John’s post is the same thing. Which means to say John is being dishonest with his accusations. They aren’t meant to actually address a serious concern John has about the younger generation, but only meant for the sole purpose of whipping up Fundies.
Of course, you say he was “factually wrong, used sweeping generalizations, and poor rhetoric” but no one has yet to prove this claim. Give me some examples.
This author’s complaint is disingenuous. He accurately identifies the gist of MacArthur’s complaint:
And then ‘refutes’ MacArthur with the following claims:
* [He’s] irresponsible
* [It’s] ‘red meat’
* [It’s] poor rhetoric
* [It’s] bad hermeneutics
* the old guys do it too
But he totally skips the point of MacArthur’s article (after failing to deal with any of the scripture references or scriptural principles that MacArthur brings into play):
MacArthur’s point could be summed up in a couple of quotes:
If everything you know about Christian living came from blogs and websites in the young-and-restless district of the Reformed community, you might have the impression that beer is the principal symbol of Christian liberty.
For some who self-identify as “Young, Restless, and Reformed,” it seems beer is a more popular topic for study and discussion than the doctrine of predestination.
After all, in a culture where cool is everything, what could be a better lubricant for one’s testimony than a frosty pint?
And then ‘refutes’ MacArthur with the following claims:
* [He’s] irresponsible
* [It’s] ‘red meat’
* [It’s] poor rhetoric
* [It’s] bad hermeneutics
* the old guys do it too
But he totally skips the point of MacArthur’s article (after failing to deal with any of the scripture references or scriptural principles that MacArthur brings into play):
So it sounds like the author is complaining that MacArthur thinks it’s a bad idea to drink beer. That’s not MacArthur’s point at all - it’s about associating themselves with debauched behavior in order to exploit their ‘liberty’ in Christ.
Real Christian liberty is not about flouting taboos and offending conventional notions of propriety. The liberty in which we stand begins with full indemnity from the law’s threats and condemnation—meaning we are at peace with God (Romans 5:1; 8:1). Christian liberty also removes the restrictions of the law’s ceremonial commandments (Colossians 2:16-17)—freeing us from asceticism, superstition, sensuality, and “human precepts and teachings” (vv. 18-23).
But sober-minded self-control and maturity are virtues commanded and commended by Scripture; these are not manmade rules or legalistic standards. As a matter of fact, one of the main qualifications for both deacons and elders in the church is that they cannot be given to much wine. In other words, they are to be known for their sobriety, not for their consumption of beer.
"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
[Fred Butler] Never did he say Dr. M was being dishonest, just that he was factually wrong, used sweeping generalizations, and poor rhetoric. Genuine pastoral concerns are great. But if MacArthur wants to be heard, he should know his audience better.Frankly Fred, there’s a difference between unhelpful communication techniques and dishonesty. Apparently you don’t get that difference. You also said “you” (meaning I) said he was “factually wrong, used sweeping generalizations, and poor rhetoric.” Read the sentence I wrote again please. I just don’t think you read carefully, either my comments or the original articles.
Shayne,
Did you miss the whole section when he compared John’s comments to the 2004 speech by Zell Miller at the Republican convention? He then claimed Zell’s speech was “red meat” for Republicans and filled with nothing but mischaracterizations that were “easily refuted.” In essence, he is saying John’s post is the same thing. Which means to say John is being dishonest with his accusations. They aren’t meant to actually address a serious concern John has about the younger generation, but only meant for the sole purpose of whipping up Fundies.
Of course, you say he was “factually wrong, used sweeping generalizations, and poor rhetoric” but no one has yet to prove this claim. Give me some examples.
My answer to his question
Am to be impugned as worldly because I have a beer once and awhile?No
Shayne writes,
there’s a difference between unhelpful communication techniques and dishonesty.
Does anyone’s words have any actual meaning anymore? I don’t get that difference, I guess. If you are going to compare John’s written concerns with a speech at a political convention, a speech that was allegedly “filled mischaracterizations” (I take that as meaning “half-truths” or “half-lies”) for the sole purpose of being “red meat” for the political base, and say John was doing the same thing in his article; I take that to mean John isn’t entirely sincere about what he wrote. There had to be an underlying motive. That being, according to the author, to be “red meat for fundamentalists.” I take that as clearly meaning he thinks John’s overall article is dishonest. If the guy had meant to say John is using unhelpful communications, then he needs to say that. The illustration he used was unhelpful in communicating his intention if such is the case.
Still waiting for you to provide those examples of John’s factually wrong sweeping generalizations.
there’s a difference between unhelpful communication techniques and dishonesty.
Does anyone’s words have any actual meaning anymore? I don’t get that difference, I guess. If you are going to compare John’s written concerns with a speech at a political convention, a speech that was allegedly “filled mischaracterizations” (I take that as meaning “half-truths” or “half-lies”) for the sole purpose of being “red meat” for the political base, and say John was doing the same thing in his article; I take that to mean John isn’t entirely sincere about what he wrote. There had to be an underlying motive. That being, according to the author, to be “red meat for fundamentalists.” I take that as clearly meaning he thinks John’s overall article is dishonest. If the guy had meant to say John is using unhelpful communications, then he needs to say that. The illustration he used was unhelpful in communicating his intention if such is the case.
Still waiting for you to provide those examples of John’s factually wrong sweeping generalizations.
[Fred Butler] Shayne writes,I’m still waiting for you to tell me where I said he was factually wrong or had sweeping generalizations. I said the author said that. You twisted my sentance and left off the part where I said the author said that.
there’s a difference between unhelpful communication techniques and dishonesty.
Does anyone’s words have any actual meaning anymore? I don’t get that difference, I guess. If you are going to compare John’s written concerns with a speech at a political convention, a speech that was allegedly “filled mischaracterizations” (I take that as meaning “half-truths” or “half-lies”) for the sole purpose of being “red meat” for the political base, and say John was doing the same thing in his article; I take that to mean John isn’t entirely sincere about what he wrote. There had to be an underlying motive. That being, according to the author, to be “red meat for fundamentalists.” I take that as clearly meaning he thinks John’s overall article is dishonest. If the guy had meant to say John is using unhelpful communications, then he needs to say that. The illustration he used was unhelpful in communicating his intention if such is the case.
Still waiting for you to provide those examples of John’s factually wrong sweeping generalizations.
[Fred Butler] Of course, you say he was “factually wrong, used sweeping generalizations, and poor rhetoric”What I really said was
[Shaynus] Never did he say Dr. M was being dishonest, just that he was factually wrong, used sweeping generalizations, and poor rhetoric.Should I say you’re being dishonest by misquoting me? No. I genuinely think you are misreading me, and not reading carefully. I don’t judge your motives in this mistake. Once you can demonstrate that you can really read what I’m writing and not jumping to conclusions, I’ll be happy to engage with you. But not before.
Here’s the difference between dishonesty and unhelpful style. I’m a political junkie (that’s my degree at least). I remember Zell Miller’s speech at the RNC. He was a Democrat speaking to Republicans about the downfall of the Democratic Party in the south. I have it in my iTunes and iPod. I own and have read his book, “A National Party No More.” Zell Miller uses political rhetoric designed to evoke an emotional response from old time Southern Democrats and New South Republicans. If there were factual errors (which I don’t know of, and it’s not the point), I think it’s fair to not judge Miller’s motives as dishonest, but rather misguided. Dishonest? No. Rhetoric written to evoke a certain emotional response among followers? I think so. What I can’t prove (and neither does Ordinary Pastor try to) is John MacArthur’s heart of dishonesty. I don’t think he is being so. I think he’s honest and upright, he just needs a rhetorical seat belt sometimes so he’ll really be heard.
My heart is that YRR will hear him. But when MacArthur isn’t careful in his persuasion, in really understanding and seeing the views of those he’s talking to, he won’t be heard.
John MacArthur didn’t say it was worldly; he said it was puerile and irresponsible. “Ordinary pastor’s” rebuttal didn’t prove otherwise.
[Brenda T] John MacArthur didn’t say it was worldly; he said it was puerile and irresponsible. “Ordinary pastor’s” rebuttal didn’t prove otherwise.Full quote is:
It is puerile and irresponsible for any pastor to encourage the recreational use of intoxicants—especially in church-sponsored activitiesI personally agree with this quote. It’s a bad idea for Pastors to encourage people to drink!
Shayne writes,
Never did he say Dr. M was being dishonest, just that he was factually wrong, used sweeping generalizations, and poor rhetoric.
I will let this be my last response and you can have the last word if you want it. I understand that you were quoting the author, but then you followed up this citation by saying, “Genuine pastoral concerns are great. But if MacArthur wants to be heard, he should know his audience better.”
Two things here: First, the author has not proven his case. I asked you for specifics; he certainly didn’t provide them. What is factually wrong, where are sweeping generalizations and what poor rhetoric? I understand you are agreeing with the author by saying John won’t be heard because he doesn’t care to know his audience, IOW, the guy is right when he accuses John of using factually erroneous generalizations articulated with poor rhetoric.
As to the Zell Miller comparison. I’m sorry, but the author used that illustration as a means to say John was just playing to a particular audience. I don’t see any other way to take it as it stands in his article. That means John isn’t sincere and is dishonest because he’s writing to get an emotional reaction, not addressing a serious concern.
Never did he say Dr. M was being dishonest, just that he was factually wrong, used sweeping generalizations, and poor rhetoric.
I will let this be my last response and you can have the last word if you want it. I understand that you were quoting the author, but then you followed up this citation by saying, “Genuine pastoral concerns are great. But if MacArthur wants to be heard, he should know his audience better.”
Two things here: First, the author has not proven his case. I asked you for specifics; he certainly didn’t provide them. What is factually wrong, where are sweeping generalizations and what poor rhetoric? I understand you are agreeing with the author by saying John won’t be heard because he doesn’t care to know his audience, IOW, the guy is right when he accuses John of using factually erroneous generalizations articulated with poor rhetoric.
As to the Zell Miller comparison. I’m sorry, but the author used that illustration as a means to say John was just playing to a particular audience. I don’t see any other way to take it as it stands in his article. That means John isn’t sincere and is dishonest because he’s writing to get an emotional reaction, not addressing a serious concern.
Discussion