John MacArthur: "Anything that silences, sidelines, or relegates the gospel to secondary status is antithetical to the principles we affirm when we call ourselves evangelicals"

Seems to me like we may be trying to make the MD into a doctrinal confession, which is not what is intended. The purpose of it is to have people who call themselves Christians to express with one voice opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and violations of religious liberty. I think that MacArthur’s protest has a a lot to do with his extraneous “passivist” view on the American Revolution, which he holds to be a rebellion that violates Rom. 13. If he had been living in the 18th century, he would no doubt have refused to side with other Colonists and used some of the same reasons he uses now, i.e. that they did not all share the same definition of the Gospel as he does. David Barton has made an excellent rebuttle of this view. (http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=24548). I agree with MacArthur that believers should not join with unbelievers in the work of the Gospel, but the MD is a statement of belief about civic questions that pertain to American society. I wonder if MacArthur would ever join with people who have different interpretations of the Gospel in any other civic function.

I can join with LDS friends in patriotic Boy Scouts of America causes. We want the next generation to know the same American freedoms that we have experienced. We want boys to not be caught up in the cultural decadence of the day.

Yes, the debate is over whether the Church becomes in any way involved with “God and Country”.

But if BSA were restricting me or any of our den leaders in our church pack from giving forth the pure, blessed gospel to those in this predominant LDS culture (for this is fundamental), we would disobey. American moralism can never be considered the gospel. If allowed to be, it is horrible damnation.

MD is a statement of belief about civic questions that pertain to American society.

It is more than that. It is a statement of self-professed Christians about civic matters. I would not be concerned were it not for that issue. But extending the name “Christian” to people who are not Christian is a confusion and compromise of the gospel.

I am sure you do it all the time. The name “Christian” is used in both a biblical and a cultural manner in the real world in which we live. Using it in a cultural manner means to distinguish it from the other religions of the world. In a biblical sense, Christianity is not the religion of America, but in a cultural sense, it most definitely is in the minds of the rest of the world. The western world is not biblically speaking Christian, but culturally it is Judeo-Christian. What is so hard about that? Judeo-Christian values are important enough to fight for. Real Christians, in my opinion, will not give up the fight for the culture.

I’d agree w/those who say it’s about civic matters, but see discussion here from earlier this week: http://sharperiron.org/filings/11-23-09/13010
The problem is that even though it’s a civic issues document, its wording doesn’t adequately preserve important distinctions. It doesn’t have to be a “doctrinal document” to communicate doctrinal ideas. So far, I’m not inclined to put the matter quite as strongly as Dr Mac has, but I think he is basically right. The other thread also contains a couple of ideas for how it might have been handled better… different kinds of statements presented differently, etc.

I am sure you do it all the time.

I don’t. The word “Christian” has a biblical meaning that I use. I do not use it to refer to a social or cultural group.

in a cultural sense, it most definitely is in the minds of the rest of the world.

But this is because they don’t understand what “Christian” means, and we contribute to that confusion when we use it wrongly.

The western world is not biblically speaking Christian, but culturally it is Judeo-Christian. What is so hard about that?

Nothing. It is simply an inaccurate use of the idea.

Judeo-Christian values are important enough to fight for. Real Christians, in my opinion, will not give up the fight for the culture.

That’s a completely different issue. We could search the Scriptures for some call to fight for the culture. I have yet to see it there, but I am willing to entertain suggestions. However, to refuse to call an unbeliever a “Christian” does not seem to be the same as “giving up the fight for culture.” We can fight for culture, if we so desire, without calling an unbeliever a Christian … in effect, lying (which never helps culture). Preserving the integrity of the gospel and what it means is far more important than fighting culture by calling someone a Christian when they aren’t. It gives them false hope and confuses others about the real hope. To quote you, What is so hard about that?

[jimcarwest] I am sure you do it all the time. The name “Christian” is used in both a biblical and a cultural manner in the real world in which we live. Using it in a cultural manner means to distinguish it from the other religions of the world. In a biblical sense, Christianity is not the religion of America, but in a cultural sense, it most definitely is in the minds of the rest of the world. The western world is not biblically speaking Christian, but culturally it is Judeo-Christian. What is so hard about that? Judeo-Christian values are important enough to fight for. Real Christians, in my opinion, will not give up the fight for the culture.

Can you do me a favor and name one time in the Scriptures where Christians either opted into a fighting for a cultural issue or are commanded to do so?

Christians aren’t called to fight societal wars over cultural mores. They’re called to preach the gospel. That’s why this is doomed to failure.

[jimcarwest] The name “Christian” is used in both a biblical and a cultural manner in the real world in which we live. Using it in a cultural manner means to distinguish it from the other religions of the world. In a biblical sense, Christianity is not the religion of America, but in a cultural sense, it most definitely is in the minds of the rest of the world. The western world is not biblically speaking Christian, but culturally it is Judeo-Christian. … Judeo-Christian values are important enough to fight for. Real Christians, in my opinion, will not give up the fight for the culture.

I think it would have been simple enough to include some language in the Declaration that indicated they meant “Christian” in a cultural sense. But they didn’t do that.
As for not giving up the fight for the culture, I wouldn’t say it comes down to “real” Christians vs. unreal ones, but I am among those who do not believe in giving up. It’s possible to have widely differing reasons for that. For my part, I have several, though any one of them is enough all by itself. For starters, for me it’s about loving my children and grandchildren and wanting to leave them as good a society as possible to live in. For another, I firmly believe that the morality and immorality of choices human beings make matters deeply to God even when those making the choices are unbelievers. I’ve argued this point before and offered multiple biblical examples. The fact that doing good is not meritorious and doesn’t pay for sin in the least does mean mean that doing good is no better than doing bad. So I’m in favor of getting as many folks as possible to live as decently as possible… and I do believe this is a “Christian” thing to do. It does have to take a back seat to the gospel of course, but I don’t accept the false dichotomy that reasons “We have to either try to improve society or seek to win the lost.”
(But I should probably clarify that I do not believe improving “society” is in any way the mission of the church in the world)

You might read the Old Testament again and then see the commentary in Hebrews 11. The fight of faith which God commanded in the OT involved defending the moral high ground that had been attained. Read especially Heb. 11:32-34. The battle is first of all spiritual, but the rights that we have achieved in America ought to be defended. Passivism is not a Christian virtue when it comes to defending the right and protecting one’s family, in my opinion. Tell me, sir, that you would sit idly by while government schools indoctrinate your children in atheism, while a government forcibly took your children from you, like they do today in Germany to stop homeschooling, while authorities act tyrannically to take possession of your property and that of your neighbors in violation of the hard-fought battles that have been won. We are Christians first, and willing to suffer for our faith, but we are also Americans (citizens of two worlds) who have been blessed by God with freedoms that have cost the blood of our forefathers. If we are not willing to stand strong to pass on the blessings of freedom to our children, why should we enjoy the freedoms that others have fought for and passed on to us? Would we have stood up against the British who pillaged and destroyed our ancestors in the eighteenth century? If we would have then, why not now? If we won’t exert our influence to protect those freedoms now, isn’t it doubtful that we would have done so then? Would we have been in that number who fled to Canada (like some today) rather than join with our neighbors (Christian or non-Christian) to defend our civil rights and our heritage? There is something about your argument that appeals to my spiritual instincts, but there is also something that sounds appeasing to me, and that might be using the Scriptures to evade certain responsibility for living in a context that Paul the Apostle never had the privilege of enjoying. Being willing to suffer at the hands of a dictator or tyrant against whom one has no civil rights, like he did, is one thing; being willing to go back to that experience, once having enjoyed the freedoms we have enjoyed, is quite another thing. Selah.

Jim, I’m with you on the concept of not giving up… or being passive. But neither the OT saints nor Heb. 11 are about fighting for the moral high ground in a setting where the people of God and the nation live in are distinct. This is an important difference. From Moses onward—through the vehicle of the Mosaic/Sinai Covenant—God had organized His people into a nation. So, for these, the effort of the people of God (i.e., believers) to be holy was the same thing as the effort to make/keep the nation holy. But since the demise of the Mosaic Covenant, the people of God are not a nation, but rather live in nations.
I like the dual citizenship idea, but I’ve not found much biblical support for it. We are citizens pretty much in one place and occupants of another. But Scripture does not deny that we are “citizens” here in the sense most people mean. And we have all the duties that befall citizens (“render unto Caesar”… “honor the King” etc.).
So I think making a case for involvement in civil/social concerns has to be built mostly from different stuff than the model we see in Mosaic era Israel (though I do think there are timeless principles in the Old Covenant, some of which are relevant to what we would want to aim for in civil efforts). It has more to do with the Scripture-wide values of justice, the value of labor, the virtues, etc., and loving one’s neighbor.

[jimcarwest] You might read the Old Testament again and then see the commentary in Hebrews 11. The fight of faith which God commanded in the OT involved defending the moral high ground that had been attained. Read especially Heb. 11:32-34. The battle is first of all spiritual, but the rights that we have achieved in America ought to be defended. Passivism is not a Christian virtue when it comes to defending the right and protecting one’s family, in my opinion. Tell me, sir, that you would sit idly by while government schools indoctrinate your children in atheism, while a government forcibly took your children from you, like they do today in Germany to stop homeschooling, while authorities act tyrannically to take possession of your property and that of your neighbors in violation of the hard-fought battles that have been won. We are Christians first, and willing to suffer for our faith, but we are also Americans (citizens of two worlds) who have been blessed by God with freedoms that have cost the blood of our forefathers. If we are not willing to stand strong to pass on the blessings of freedom to our children, why should we enjoy the freedoms that others have fought for and passed on to us? Would we have stood up against the British who pillaged and destroyed our ancestors in the eighteenth century? If we would have then, why not now? If we won’t exert our influence to protect those freedoms now, isn’t it doubtful that we would have done so then? Would we have been in that number who fled to Canada (like some today) rather than join with our neighbors (Christian or non-Christian) to defend our civil rights and our heritage? There is something about your argument that appeals to my spiritual instincts, but there is also something that sounds appeasing to me, and that might be using the Scriptures to evade certain responsibility for living in a context that Paul the Apostle never had the privilege of enjoying. Being willing to suffer at the hands of a dictator or tyrant against whom one has no civil rights, like he did, is one thing; being willing to go back to that experience, once having enjoyed the freedoms we have enjoyed, is quite another thing. Selah.

Jim,

None of the men and women who are listed as examples in Hebrews 11 did so because they wanted to establish ‘moral high ground’ with unbelievers and especially by joining hands with the false prophets of the day in order to do so.

Furthermore, we’re both sidestepping the issue - Catholics who hold to traditional and orthodox Catholic doctrine are not Christians. A person who trusts the pope’s infallibility on matters of soteriology [especially in regards Marian doctrine] cannot enter into the Kingdom of God because they reject the perfect and completed work of Christ on the cross and choose to establish their own righteousness [Romans 10:1-3].

I think that the short story from II Chronicles provides instruction for us here:

[2 Chronicles 20:35-37] After this Jehoshaphat king of Judah joined with Ahaziah king of Israel, who acted wickedly. He joined him in building ships to go to Tarshish, and they built the ships in Ezion-geber. Then Eliezer the son of Dodavahu of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying, “Because you have joined with Ahaziah, the LORD will destroy what you have made.” And the ships were wrecked and were not able to go to Tarshish.

Jehoshaphat, the good king of Judah, joined forces with Ahaziah, a wicked king of Israel, for a strictly commercial project, yet God destroyed it because of the unholy alliance between the two nations. How much more so will God be angry with an unholy and wicked union of false prophets with His own children?

As for my privileges as an American citizen - let them be revoked if they counter the tasks and duties that God has appointed for me to do. There’s no right in the Scriptures to ‘the pursuit of happiness’…unless we are pursuing that happiness in our Lord. No, let’s be like those people in Hebrews 10:

[Hebrews 10:32-36] But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised.

Let’s suffer - yes! But let’s do it because being a citizen of heaven is far better than being a citizen of America…after all, it is.

There is a difference, it seems to me. Christians should not make “gaining the moral high ground” the strongest imperative of their ministry in the world, but “defending” morality and righteousness in society is certainly not an anti-Christian activity. In fact, preaching the gospel and calling men to repentance is the key element in civilizing society. Missionary ministry has had that effect in many nations. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” Killing babies (Molech) and practicing the abomination of homosexuality were two of the main reasons for God’s judgment on nations in the past. While we may object to some of the language of the MD that fails to adequately distinguish the various theological differences that exist between different “confessions,” (and I think those distinctions should be made, especially in any document having the purpose of clarifying these differences — and the MD does not have that purpose), it seems to me that, by turning the MD into a catalyst for expressing the legitimate division on this subject, we miss an opportunity to come together as Christendom to make a statement on these other moral issues. Okay, make statements that clarify the differences (as many are rightfully doing), but don’t pass up the opportunity to express unanimity on the moral questions. In other words, “don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.” Let’s say: “We disgree with you on your definitions of the gospel, but we agree with you on the evils of abortion, gay marriage, and violations of religious liberty.” Would that be too painful?

we miss an opportunity to come together as Christendom to make a statement on these other moral issues.

But this is just the point. We are not “Christendom.” We cannot extend that label to people who are not Christians. I am fine for Christians to come together and make a statement. I am not find with calling people Christian when in fact they are not Christian.

The problem with leaving those distinctions only to documents having the purpose of clarifying these differences is that we send confusing signals that ultimately undermine the gospel. By calling people “Christian” when they are not, we send a message to unbelievers that “you can be like them and be right with God because they are Christian just like we are.” That is a compromise of the gospel.

Let’s say: “We disgree with you on your definitions of the gospel, but we agree with you on the evils of abortion, gay marriage, and violations of religious liberty.” Would that be too painful?

Not at all. Many have done that, such as MacArthur.

I have come to shun use of the phrase “God will judge America…” as if we are an Old Testament people group awaiting fire from heaven, and as if Washington State might burn for the sins of Floridians. That sentiment makes a great Fourth of July sermon, but it has no basis in Scripture.

God’s pattern for bringing judgment on Gentile nations during this age of grace is made clear in Rom. 1:18-32. Further, the real Judgment of the Nations (Gentiles) is much scarier than its caricatures, and will take place during the 75 days of judgment (Dan. 12:12) following the Second Coming of Christ (Matt. 25:31-46; cf. Joel 3:2).

Also, we talk about “defending our rights” in America as if we are going to storm Washington, D.C. with pitchforks. As has often been said, why would we talk about taking any action at all when we as Christians have not done the most basic act of stewardship in a free society — take up our pens and vote in accord with Biblical principles?? Depending on the statistics you read, evangelicals across the board are getting worse in that regard, not better — which makes the thought that they would ever take any action beyond voting to be laughable indeed.

I love America and her freedoms, and I am all for keeping them as long as we can. However, there is a sappy sentimentalism involved in the “God Bless America” mentality which has no basis in Scripture and little in real history. Holding it makes us vulnerable to crass politicians who play on the emotions of Christians. How much better to “search the Scriptures” with a view to understanding the “the signs of the times.”

This whole thing strikes me as a kind of Moral Majority reprise—same basic philosophical foundation: “Moral conservatives must join together for a noble cause.” In the late 70’s & beyond, it was “Save the USA!” Today, it’s “Condemn what’s destroying the USA.” [Incidentally, the latter subtly acknowledges the failure of the former.] In either situation, I concur with MacArthur.

Perhaps if the MD were a product of representatives from, say, the Gospel Coalition, Christianity Today, Inc, the SBC, the GARBC, and independent fundamentalists, the situation might be different. Why do you suppose such a document will not be forthcoming from such a group within broader evangelicalism?