Don Johnson: An open letter to John MacArthur

Greg, I have not had Mike Barrett or Ian Paisley ever speak at our church and would not for some of the reasons you mentioned. I have spoken with Dr. Paisley at a BJU Bible Conference. I also spoke with Dr. Barrett at the AACCS annual meeting along with Dr. Bauder (American Christian Colleges and Seminaries). Dr. Barrett was one of my language teachers at BJU and is a fine Hebrew scholar as well as a Christian gentleman. Dr. Hankins has publicly declared BJU Seminary as Baptistic and dispensational, for which I am thankful.

Overall, I appreciate Dr. MacArthur. I have his commentaries and use them. I appreciate his stand on many doctrinal and ethical issues. I don’t think we need to be shooting at him or misrepresenting him as was done on the blood issue years ago. Nevertheless, his strong stand on the cessationist issue (which I deeply appreciate) does raise some eyebrows on his ecclesiastical relationship with John Piper. I think we can discuss that in a civil fashion. Jim is correct. I don’t believe John Mac identifies himself as a fundamentalist, though many evangelicals would think of him as such.

I don’t believe John Mac identifies himself as a fundamentalist, though many evangelicals would think of him as such.

GCC is still listed as in fellowship with the IFCA, which historically stood for “Independent Fundamental Churches of America.” He may not aggressively identify as a Fundamentalist, but depending on context, that can be said to be true for people other than him. Even BJIII campaigned for the adoption of the term “preservationist”- presumably because in part he realized there are people one wants to distance ones’ self away from as well as a desire to identify with others. I do know that examining specific associations, GCC and JMc have had no trouble associating with men from the GARBC, graduates of Central Seminary, BJU, and so on. Phil Johnson spoke very highly of Detroit BTS last fall in conversation with me.

As far as the rest, I have had Mike Barrett speak at my church, Mike. I’d do it again, and gladly. I think it is possible to benefit from the ministry of someone it would be difficult to enjoy local church fellowship with.

I understand the concern with John Piper. But as I asked Don earlier (and got no response to, BTW)…

Hypothetically, if John Piper wasn’t at T4G, would there be no issues of concern then? Would he still need to denounce more than he has to satisfy you? If Piper was roundly denounced, what then? Do you arrange to have the next FBF West Coast Regional on the campus at Masters?

This is what it boils down to for me, and why I question the value of Don’s post/article. If Piper were denounced or quietly dis-invited from T4G over this, what then? Are you saying there would be no more concerns, and everyone would get along?

[Greg Linscott]

I don’t believe John Mac identifies himself as a fundamentalist, though many evangelicals would think of him as such.

GCC is still listed as in fellowship with the IFCA, which historically stood for “Independent Fundamental Churches of America.”

Well, whatever, the IFCA is just an alphabet soup, now, officially, aren’t they? I mean their name is IFCA International, that’s it. I don’t know why they changed, but none of “Independent” “Fundamental” “Churches” or “America” forms part of their name anymore. Seems odd to me - I’ve seen other organizations do it, usually because they want to retain the branding the initials give them without the meaning the words gave them.

[Greg Linscott]

I understand the concern with John Piper. But as I asked Don earlier (and got no response to, BTW)…

Hypothetically, if John Piper wasn’t at T4G, would there be no issues of concern then? Would he still need to denounce more than he has to satisfy you? If Piper was roundly denounced, what then? Do you arrange to have the next FBF West Coast Regional on the campus at Masters?

This is what it boils down to for me, and why I question the value of Don’s post/article. If Piper were denounced or quietly dis-invited from T4G over this, what then? Are you saying there would be no more concerns, and everyone would get along?

It would be absolutely shocking if T4G would do anything like what you suggest [denounce/dis-invite]. Of course, one instance doesn’t make a pattern, but Fundamentalists would be encouraged if something even approaching that were to happen. Certainly lines of communication would have to be opened and one could hope that we could encourage a more consistent separatist position. If future events proved a continuing pattern of separation from men of this caliber, we would want to build bridges with them.

As to your first question, well, no, there are other issues still problematic about T4G. I think you know that. But to make this an issue would certainly be encouraging.

There’s nothing new here. Thirty years ago, when I was in the FBF, I recall being informed that the IFCA wasn’t “really” fundamental. The walls of separation between Bible-believing, Gospel preaching, truth defending brethren are still there; cold, thick, without windows, and with intricate combination locks on the doors.

Well, whatever, the IFCA is just an alphabet soup, now, officially, aren’t they? I mean their name is IFCA International, that’s it. I don’t know why they changed, but none of “Independent” “Fundamental” “Churches” or “America” forms part of their name anymore. Seems odd to me - I’ve seen other organizations do it, usually because they want to retain the branding the initials give them without the meaning the words gave them.

Don,

I attend an IFCA church. My pastor is a leader in the association. If you seriously think that our church is not fundamental because we don’t mention it in the association name, then post your DS here and we’ll compare notes.

You know better than this, and if you think that we have to wave the “Fundamental” flag in the name of our church in order to be “Fundamentalists”, then by all means - keep that zombified name. I’d rather be known for what we stand for than having the right name on a sign, but hey - if you believe that those who are of Cephas really are better than those of Paul…go right ahead.

Ron, you’re forgetting the guard towers, razor wire, and guards to shoot interlopers OR departees. But they do have a desolate house, so that’s going for them at least.

The FBF needs it representatives to perpetuate myths. It is harder to do in the era when people can examine for themselves and not just take the word of the current heralds of FBFdom.

This is taken from the IFCA Statement I linked to above:

Section 2. Movements Contrary to Faith
d. New Evangelicalism (Neo-Evangelicalism, New Conservatism)
These terms refer to that movement within evangelicalism characterized by a toleration of and a dialogue with theological liberalism. Its essence is seen in an emphasis upon the social application of the Gospel and weak or unclear doctrines of: the inspiration of Scripture, Biblical creationism, eschatology, dispensationalism, and separation. It is further characterized by an attempt to accommodate biblical Christianity and make it acceptable to the modern mind. We believe that these movements are out of harmony with the Word of God and the official doctrine and position of IFCA International and are inimical to the work of God.

Anyone else get the latest issue of the IFCA Voice?

The theme of this issue is separation; one of the feature articles is by Dick Gregory, whom I remember speaking at BJU Bible Conference & chapel on more than one occasion. I haven’t dissected the articles, but what I’ve skimmed echoes what I’ve heard often in BJU & FBF circles.

As to your first question, well, no, there are other issues still problematic about T4G. I think you know that. But to make this an issue would certainly be encouraging.

I suspected as much- which is why I questioned the value of the original article in the first place. The focus could leave someone with the impression that if the Piper matter was addressed, then the last obstacle would be removed… but that really isn’t so, is it?

On these other matters (IFCA, etc etc), I truly fail to understand the difficulty here. If one is secure in personal beliefs and specific distinctive identifications (such as the FBF or BJU Alumni Association), what threat is there to extending limited fellowship to those with different points of emphasis? I don’t like the relationship between JMc and Piper. I also don’t like the relationship BJU has had recently with KJV only types like Clarence Sexton and even Jack Schaap. I have had opportunity to extend some limited fellowship with both, however, in spite of my specific reservations. And by the way- though the relationship may still be in place, JMc has been much more vocal about his specific differences and concerns with Piper than the BJU administration or the FBF has been on Sexton/Schaap/Independent Baptist Friends.

I don’t dispute that there are differences in beliefs in these specific scenarios. I also don’t for a minute think that constituency/politics issues and interests don’t factor heavily into why one gets addressed and another gets ignored.

It appears that what you are saying is that we aren’t allowed to criticize John MacArthur, ever, because… ? Why?

But we are allowed to criticize BJU/FBFI/etc., always, because…? Why?

And do you suppose that a long entrenched pattern/philosophy such as that exhibited by evangelicals would win over the long entrenched points of view of fundamentalists by just one change? That’s a ludicrous position. It would be very encouraging to see them take a stand here, but there are other issues and it would take time to demonstrate a changed philosophy.

As for the IFCA, I regret getting drawn into that line of debate. I will repeat, however, that when organizations change their name, it means something. And when they do it like they did, retaining initials but eschewing words, it is usually (in my opinion) because they want to distance themselves from the words for some reason. I think I still have the freedom to express opinions here?

Greg,

I was not implying it was wrong for you to have Dr. Barrett speak at Marshall. He has a boat-load of commendable qualities. In my best recollection I have never had a non-baptistic man preach for me at Troy, but I have spoken with such men at the World Congress of Fundamentalism, BJU Bible conference, or the AACCS. I might add that when I spoke with Ian Paisley for Bible Conference, Dr. Rolland McCune also spoke that week with us, a man whose Baptist credentials have never been questioned. Those fundamental organizations recognize that Fundamentalism is broader than simply being baptistic. Since my church is Baptist, I didn’t invite them to speak in that venue. One can have a more narrow criteria for one’s church than one would for a large fundamentalist organization that would include non-baptists. I am simply clarifying my position, since you mentioned that I had endorsed Paisley and Barrett. Both are good men; they simply are Free Presbyterian. Of the two, I much prefer Dr. Barrett.

The distinction between JMac and Piper over cessationism is potentially a first order issue. This is why I think the discussion is valid.

It seems to me that the great benefit of not being broadly affiliated is that one could critique anyone and everyone who “needed it” without worrying about harming the coalition. One could partner with individuals and single churches to whatever extent and for however long one judged proper and that would be that. Is there a down side to such a scenario I would be missing?

I am not saying “we” cannot criticize JMc or anyone else. I am saying that this criticism seems disingenuous, because it leaves an impression that the Piper issue is the only thing standing in the way of meaningful unity, when you yourself have already admitted that it is only one of several concerns that would prevent fellowship.

I do think you are right that the IFCA wanted to distance themselves from words… I would even venture to speculate that “Fundamentalist” was one of them. Again, others (even within our own movement) have at least openly considered and articulated that notion. But leaving a word behind or downplaying its usage doesn’t always mean that you leave the ideals associated with that word.

And do you suppose that a long entrenched pattern/philosophy such as that exhibited by evangelicals would win over the long entrenched points of view of fundamentalists by just one change? That’s a ludicrous position. It would be very encouraging to see them take a stand here, but there are other issues and it would take time to demonstrate a changed philosophy.

I actually think it is ludicrous that you paint with such wide, encompassing terms. There are already Fundamentalists who are comfortable with identifying to some degree with JMc and co, such as Bill Barrick, OT prof at The Master’s Seminary and elder at Placerita Baptist Church in Newhall, CA (a congregation in fellowship with the GARBC). I am one of at least 8 fundamental Baptist pastors from Minnesota planning to attend the Shepherd’s Conference next week. While JMc may not represent our particular expression of beliefs in every way, dismissing him as an “evangelical” also neglects the very significant differences he and those with whom he serves would have with figures ranging from Mark Driscoll to Rick Warren to Joyce Meyer.

Fundamentalism has historically been a movement that has defined itself by militant opposition to theological liberalism. I would suggest that there is plenty of that to go around today - there shouldn’t be any arguments on that score. What pains me is that, instead of being outspoken and militant in defense of the historic Christian faith, fundamentalist leaders seem to be content to snipe at conservative evangelicals instead.

Where have the fundamentalists been in the last 25 years as theological liberalism has grown ever more rampant? It is the conservative evangelicals who have led the way in answering critics like Bart Ehrman and others. It is conservative evangelicals who have fought back against proponents of the re-definition of marriage. This shouldn’t be! A desire to fight against liberalism appears to have been replaced by a desire to criticize those who aren’t “fundamental enough.” There is a time and a place for calling out erring brethren. There is also a time to fight against liberalism. I suggest that some fundamentalist leaders today seem to relish the former and ignore the latter.

This is sad. This is why I think the MacArthur article is a waste of time.

That’s a ludicrous position. It would be very encouraging to see them take a stand here, but there are other issues and it would take time to demonstrate a changed philosophy.

But are you (or the FBFI) actually going to give John MacArthur (or the IFCA) the time necessary to demonstrate whatever changes it is you’re looking for? And do you have a legitimate platform to call him to ‘repentance’ in regards to his relationship to Piper, which is what some of the other people here have been asking? In short - why should MacArthur listen to you if he doesn’t even know you exist or if you haven’t reached out to him to resolve this matter Biblically?

This whole thing is beginning to remind me of Nehemiah 6:

Now when Sanballat and Tobiah and Geshem the Arab and the rest of our enemies heard that I had built the wall and that there was no breach left in it (although up to that time I had not set up the doors in the gates),Sanballat and Geshem sent to me, saying, “Come and let us meet together at Hakkephirim in the plain of Ono.” But they intended to do me harm. And I sent messengers to them, saying, “I am doing a great work and I cannot come down. Why should the work stop while I leave it and come down to you?” And they sent to me four times in this way, and I answered them in the same manner. In the same way Sanballat for the fifth time sent his servant to me with an open letter in his hand. In it was written, “It is reported among the nations, and Geshem also says it, that you and the Jews intend to rebel; that is why you are building the wall. And according to these reports you wish to become their king. And you have also set up prophets to proclaim concerning you in Jerusalem, ‘There is a king in Judah.’ And now the king will hear of these reports. So now come and let us take counsel together.” Then I sent to him, saying, “No such things as you say have been done, for you are inventing them out of your own mind.” For they all wanted to frighten us, thinking, “Their hands will drop from the work, and it will not be done.” But now, O God, strengthen my hands.

It seems to me that you’re asking for changes to be demonstrated (that you haven’t really defined aside from the issue with Piper) over an unspecified period of time (of your choosing) in order to ‘restore fellowship’ with them. That’s not even remotely fair. You’d be better off to just say “I don’t think we should fellowship with John MacArthur because I said so.”