Don Johnson: An open letter to John MacArthur
The distinction between JMac and Piper over cessationism is potentially a first order issue. This is why I think the discussion is valid.
…but isn’t the KJV issue, in relation to what is actually considered to be God’s revelation or not, just as “first order”?
I’m not disputing the importance of the Piper matter. I’m observing that the criticism of it in this specific context seems at best inconsistent.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg Linscott]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.
Please note: we (i.e., Proclaim & Defend) commended Dr. MacArthur for both his book and his conference. I wrote and we published a positive review. We appreciate what was done. At the same time, there is a glaring inconsistency between MacArthur’s words and his practices. At a minimum, it demonstrates the difference between his approach and the approach of most fundamentalists. We published the open letter for the purposes of illustrating that difference as a matter of education to uninformed observers and with a hope to making some difference with Dr. MacArthur himself. In my personal opinion, he does his cause no favors by maintaining this inconsistency.
Since you will be at the Shepherd’s Conference, try to get a minute with Dr. MacArthur and call this article to his attention. I’d love to have his response to it and would be glad to publish it on P&D, unedited. Or to get him to publish it anywhere.
It isn’t beyond the possibility that you could do this, I am sure you will have at least one conversation with Phil while you are there. Ask him if he can get you a few minutes with Dr. MacArthur, or if he would raise the question himself.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[Jay]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?
No, we have a secret plot to give him just two more weeks to answer and then, KABOOM!!!
(In case anyone doesn’t get it, that last sentence is pure sarcasm.)
Good grief, Jay, what do you think this is? Your question makes no sense at all. What are we supposed to do? What would your alternative be? We make an observation, hope for change, however remote, and hope to inform those who aren’t aware of issues. There is nothing wrong with that.
I will be happy to hear of an alternative approach, but it seems to me that you are advocating that observers just keep silent and say nothing. If that is the right approach Sharper Iron should shut down now. They are always on about something or someone on the front page… how dare they?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[TylerR]Tyler, my guess is that fundamental leaders can see that theological liberalism has pretty much already self-destructed on its own (note the massive decline in the liberal protestant denominations), and that even the average rank-and-file Christian in the pew can see the dangers there. Thus, no reason to spend too much time on them any longer. They are now wolves in wolves’ clothing, so the sheep are much less likely to stray or be taken in by them.On the other hand Evangelicals are trickier, are being read and listened to by people in the pew, and are much closer to us (so they mostly look like us) and are therefore a much greater danger. These are now the wolves in sheep’s clothing, and as such are a much “better” target for the “warning” ministry.Let’s face it, separation from those who aren’t much like us in the first place is already agreed upon by the average fundamental church-goer. However, Evangelicals claim the same first-order doctrines we do (mostly), so fundamentalism must therefore be all the more diligent in pointing out their weaknesses. In other words, the sheep can easily see all the beams out there, but might miss the motes.OK, all the above was perhaps overly sarcastic, though I share at least a little of your distaste for fundamentalism’s tendency to shoot more at friends than at enemies. However, having said all that, is there any reason pastors shouldn’t be teaching their people to carefully discern what they read and hear, and to be careful what they lend their approval to? And isn’t it really more valuable for us to admonish our brothers than to spend too much time speaking out on the obvious (to those who are already convinced)? I don’t know if this letter is the right way to do it, but I can’t see how all warning about even small errors should be stopped simply because someone is a brother or names the name of Christ. I do think fundamentalism does need to be more careful in the way it handles things like this. There’s a good reason many have stopped using the term (and that includes me outside of contexts where it is well-understood), and I am quite happy my church, though fundamental, does not have that in the church name.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.
Dave Barnhart
Good grief, Jay, what do you think this is? Your question makes no sense at all. What are we supposed to do? What would your alternative be? We make an observation, hope for change, however remote, and hope to inform those who aren’t aware of issues. There is nothing wrong with that.
I will be happy to hear of an alternative approach, but it seems to me that you are advocating that observers just keep silent and say nothing. If that is the right approach Sharper Iron should shut down now. They are always on about something or someone on the front page… how dare they?
Hi Don-
No, I don’t think that you’re trying to be malicious. I just don’t understand what you expect or what you are doing at this point. You seem to think that MacArthur has compromised (to the first order, as some have suggested) or is being inconsistent and you want to ask him about it. Fair enough. Why not just write to him or call GCC directly? Why use the ‘open letter’ method instead of asking him directly? Is it that you can’t get through? Is it that he’s not responded to you?
My alternative? Well, you take what’s good from MacArthur and ignore the rest (Romans 12:9). You praise the things you can, and you encourage him to move in a ‘better’ direction if and when you have the ability to do so because there is a relationship between you two. But it seems like you have no real relationship with MacArthur, and yet you feel the need to correct him or encourage him to be better in some area. Why is that?
I don’t think that anyone is perfectly consistent on separation, and I can see why you think that he is not consisten. But does it really rise to the level of grievous error so that you have to confront it? Is it really a - sin - issue for MacArthur to have a friendly relationship with John Piper?
Sin is what should divide the body of Christ. Having a friend that you know others disagree with can be many things, but I don’t know that it rises to the level of sin. Particularly since the vast majority of our ‘fellowship’ for those on this board is reading MacArthur’s books or listening to sermons. Does anyone here actually have any kind of personal relationship with John MacArthur (other than SI Member Phil Johnson, who is probably finds this thread borderline hysterically funny)?
I’ve gone after people hard on SI…many people, and probably more than I should. But I can do that because we have some degree of a relationship by the nature of being site users together. I’ve known you, Don, since 2005 or 2007, when I joined the site. We have a certain degree of friendship, and I do value that and your input. I just don’t know that there is enough of a relationship for you and Dr. MacArthur to accomplish what you’re trying to do in your open letter. I think that MacArthur is probably (if he’s read your letter) wondering “Who is this Don Johnson guy, and what does he want?”. A more blunt person might ask, “Why should I care what Don Johnson wants?”
So I’m trying to understand. Help me understand, please.
"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
[Jay]No, I don’t think that you’re trying to be malicious. I just don’t understand what you expect or what you are doing at this point. You seem to think that MacArthur has compromised (to the first order, as some have suggested) or is being inconsistent and you want to ask him about it. Fair enough. Why not just write to him or call GCC directly? Why use the ‘open letter’ method instead of asking him directly? Is it that you can’t get through? Is it that he’s not responded to you?
Hi Jay,
I’ve stated my purposes earlier in the thread. There are more than one, I’ll not repeat all of that here. But part of the duty of Christian ministry is to teach others about error. Many of us like many things John MacArthur does. I like the Strange Fire conference and book. But at the same time, I see that MacA is not without fault in the very area he so vociferously condemns. I think other people should be informed about that inconsistency. There is a tangential purpose in trying to get MacArthur to change. I did what I could to make the letter available to him prior to publication. No response was forthcoming. I very much doubt a phone call would make any headway. At any rate, MacArthur is a public man taking a public position and there is NO NEED to contact him directly. Getting him to change or at least to respond is only a secondary purpose of the letter. The primary purpose is to warn and educate others.
[Jay] My alternative? Well, you take what’s good from MacArthur and ignore the rest (Romans 12:9). You praise the things you can, and you encourage him to move in a ‘better’ direction if and when you have the ability to do so because there is a relationship between you two. But it seems like you have no real relationship with MacArthur, and yet you feel the need to correct him or encourage him to be better in some area. Why is that?
Ok, let’s try a different character. Suppose it is TD Jakes a lot of folks are enamoured with and represents a threat to their fidelity to the truth - I don’t know him, so am I not allowed to warn or educate others about his errors? Or someone like Joel Osteen? Should we simply take the good and ignore the rest? How about Rick Warren?
Really, you are putting an unbiblical strait-jacket on biblical ministry by making these kinds of restrictions. There is no scriptural requirement that you are only allowed to criticize those with whom you have some kind of relationship. There is no mandate for that whatsoever.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Ok, let’s try a different character. Suppose it is TD Jakes a lot of folks are enamoured with and represents a threat to their fidelity to the truth - I don’t know him, so am I not allowed to warn or educate others about his errors? Or someone like Joel Osteen? Should we simply take the good and ignore the rest? How about Rick Warren?
That’s not really the issue, as I understand it. It isn’t so much that JMc is above criticism, as much as it is the nature of the criticism that has been leveled and the differences that they indicate (like a relationship with people like Piper) have been well established. Furthermore, JMc has publicly addressed the relationship with Piper and the consternation he has with Piper’s articulated positions. I still would not be surprised to see this matter addressed further, perhaps even at T4G itself.
What is going on here doesn’t seem so much an exposé of subtle error as it does the continuation of an already well-ground axe, especially when people might be tempted to conclude that there is actual exposure of error being done (addressing of the continuationist error).
I don’t think one must necessarily “ignore” the matter, as Jay suggests, as much as one acknowledges the differences and the limitations to fellowship they will bring, then moving on and enjoying what one can in light of those differences. It is not unlike acknowledging the differences a Baptist might have with a Presbyterian, at least in my mind.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
John MacArthur, TD Jakes, Joel Osteen, and Rick Warren. Yep, that about sums up the FBF.
1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.
I’m planning on attending T4G. I’ll see if I can contact JM and find out if he knows who Don is and maybe hand him a copy of Don’s letter in case he missed it in his mail. BTW, I’m a strong cessationist–-hope I don’t catch anything while I’m there.
And if you’re going to lump JM together with Jakes, Warren, and Osteen why can’t others lump all the IFB’s together. If I were on a desert island I’d choose JM and Piper over Schaap and Hyles.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Don Johnson]Ok, let’s try a different character. Suppose it is TD Jakes a lot of folks are enamoured with and represents a threat to their fidelity to the truth - I don’t know him, so am I not allowed to warn or educate others about his errors? Or someone like Joel Osteen? Should we simply take the good and ignore the rest? How about Rick Warren?
Really, you are putting an unbiblical strait-jacket on biblical ministry by making these kinds of restrictions. There is no scriptural requirement that you are only allowed to criticize those with whom you have some kind of relationship. There is no mandate for that whatsoever.
Ok, so let me make sure I understand this -
- John MacArthur - has a personal relationship with John Piper, who is a continuationist and who does pray that he be given the gift of tongues. Has not demonstrated doctrinal weakness in any of his books or in any sermon I’ve ever heard (leaving the Lordship debate out of this for now).
- TD Jakes - espouses Modalism and the health/wealth gospel. Charismatic leaning and raised in Oneness Pentecostal circles.
- Joel Osteen - does not have a clear understanding of salvation and does not preach what he does know by deliberate choice as per Larry King Live
- Rick Warren - founder and chief proponent of the seeker driven church methodology; also doctrinally aberrant
We should treat all of these people the same way? We should warn people of MacArthur the same way we’d go after Jakes, Osteen, Warren (or Driscoll, to add to your list?)
Did I miss something? This doesn’t make a ton of sense to me.
As for this question (to borrow Greg Linscott’s phrasing):
It isn’t so much that JMc is above criticism
I’ve never said that and never would say that. I’ve disagreed with MacArthur. I just don’t see a friendship with Piper as rising to a first level sin issue that would mandate separation. Apparently you feel otherwise.
Let me ask this - what is the mandate for when we must apply separation? Isn’t it always a sin issue?
"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
To be fair, I don’t think Don was equating MacArthur with Jakes, Osteen or Warren. It appeared to me he was trying to use a different, more obvious example to show the line of thought he was proposing. Let’s all be as gracious with Don as he is being asked to be with MacArthur.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Chip Van Emmerik]To be fair, I don’t think Don was equating MacArthur with Jakes, Osteen or Warren. It appeared to me he was trying to use a different, more obvious example to show the line of thought he was proposing. Let’s all be as gracious with Don as he is being asked to be with MacArthur.
Hi Chip-
Oh, I understand Don’s line of thought. There is a time - particularly with platforms like a blog or newsletter - when it is appropriate to warn others about false teaching.
I * don’t * think that MacArthur’s relationship with Piper rises to that level. I don’t think Don’s comparison even works, because the other examples he gave (Osteen, Jakes, Warren) are light years away from where this issue (the MacArthur-Piper friendship) falls. If MacArthur were getting into his pulpit and saying that he was asking God for the gift of tongues and telling people that Charismaticism is correct, then Don’s illustration would work. But MacArthur doesn’t do that.
But maybe that’s just me. Does that make more sense now?
"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
There are times when it is necessary to separate from a disobedient brother in Christ. That being said, there are times when some separatists apply the same zeal and methods to separating from brethren they consider disobedient as they do in separating from apostates. To many it seems that THE separation that defines some camps of fundamentalism is their separation from brethren that they determine to be disobedient.
A friend of mine said that he separated from some of the fundamentalist camp over their sins of pride, boastfulness, lack of compassion, and failure to be easily entreated.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
So I’m told that I should separate from JM who is sinning because he doesn’t separate from JP who is sinning because he doesn’t separate from charismatics.
Should I separate from X who fellowships with JM?
Should I separate from Y who fellowships with X?
I’ve got people warning me that I should be careful in my relationships with brethren who are not Baptist, or dispensational, or pre-millenial.
Eventually there’s no one left but me and thee…….and I’m not sure of thee!
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
First, I think that you have drawn me into a fruitless argument, and one that is really just a subtle form of “shoot the messenger”. By denying that there is any legitimate ground to raise the questions I have raised, the actual argument is “you are wrong to have raised these questions at all.”
That is simply a matter of opinion and really doesn’t deal substantively with anything that I’ve said.
Second, since you’ve left every argument I made in the letter alone, by default you are conceding (it appears) that nothing I have said or reasoned is incorrect. You aren’t attacking the substance, therefore the substance stands.
As to the others, there is a lot of sniping and useless chatter that I simply won’t respond to. They don’t deserve a response.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Discussion