Don Johnson: An open letter to John MacArthur
As a non-pastor (though I am currently a deacon) in my church, let me back up what Jay is saying. Similar to what you just posted, people (in your church and in others) are generally going to be fascinated with topics more than authors. However, once they have read a book they see as good, they are likely to pick up more by the same author, and pretty soon, the author’s name means something. When they are interested in and read books like “Desiring God” (Piper), “The Practice of Godliness” (Jerry Bridges), or “Worldliness: Resisting the Seduction of a Fallen World” (C.J. Mahaney), you will eventually have to at least want to have some idea where these men stand, and the general quality of their works.
From what you write, it’s “Islam” and “Prophecy” that are fascinating your people, probably not the particular authors, though I would guess you would want to know where those authors stand to be able to say anything about what they write, unless you plan to read each and every book your members do.
The fact is that most of these types of books (generally readable vs. systematic theologies) are coming from greater Evangelicalism, not from Fundamentalism. And unless you are trying to control the reading lists of people in your church, you will run into one or more of these authors sooner or later. MacArthur is even closer in his positions to Fundamentalism than these other names, and is generally more trusted in fundamental circles than other names in Evangelicalism, so it makes sense to point out where he may have a blind spot, or inconsistency in practice, since it’s likely his recommendations have more sway among fundamentalists, than say, those of Mark Driscoll.
These days, with Amazon, e-books, the internet, etc., I don’t believe pastors can afford to put their heads in the sand and claim they “don’t care” what these authors are saying and doing. The days of the country church where no one in town has read anything not in the town library are long over, and expecting people to get all their spiritual advice only from their pastor or other members of the church is completely unrealistic. If you can’t answer questions about these books/authors, it’s not likely that people today will stop reading such books when you speak only from ignorance with an “I don’t care” attitude.
Certainly pastors have much more important things to do then to be familiar with every author and speaker out there. I get that. But if my pastor ever wanted to give me advice about my thoughts on a book or author, and not only didn’t have enough knowledge to have “some idea” about an author, but also had no interest in finding out, I would be a lot less likely to listen to his advice.
Dave Barnhart
You misunderstand. I certainly do not have my head in the sand over this issue. I have invested considerable time in the charismatic issue since Strange Fire, including watching two moderated debates on the subject. MacArthur’s book is on my Amazon list. I do not control my church’s reading list. I encourage them to read freely and recommend books often, even from folks who (gasp!) aren’t even fundamentalists! Perish the thought …
I am indeed prepared to discuss the Strange Fire issue. I just don’t care about the specific nuances of Piper’s position on prophesy. I don’t know how else to say it. Should I delve into the nuts and bolts of Piper’s position on prophesy, or should I finish Michael Vlach’s Has the Church Replaced Israel and continue working on my sermon from Galatians 5? Piper loses.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Jay]The issue (as I see it) is that Piper seems to define prophesy differently from both Mac and Don. If Piper doesn’t define the gift of prophesy (which is what Don is talking about) the way that Don does, then we need to understand that and realize that Don’s criticism (of Mac’s relationship with Piper) may be…not correct (for lack of a better term) because he is the one misunderstanding Piper’s position. That means there is a HUGE weakness in Don’s open letter / call for whatever it is that Don’s calling for, which I still don’t understand. Is Don calling for clarification? Repentance? Naming Piper from the pulpit as a threat?
First, my questions don’t have to do with Piper’s definition of prophecy per se. If you will read the MacAthur book and/or listen to the conference audio, you will find that one of the problems guys like Piper have is in the definition of prophecy/tongues. On the one hand they want to say it is the NT gift, in which case it would be ongoing revelation, but then on the other hand they want to say, “No, no, not ongoing revelation, something less than that” in which case it isn’t the NT gift. You can’t have it both ways.
But the problem is not merely Piper’s support for prophecy or even for tongues. There are endless examples of Piper’s fairly aggressive support for charismatism and the various gifts. Again, check out the book, look up the references. Piper was very interested in the Toronto Blessing laughing revival when it was going on. Never repudiated it to my knowledge. He has a long history of support for charismatism.
Second, what am I calling on MacArthur to do? To justify himself. On the one hand he slams charismatism with very very strong language (and I think quite appropriately). Then on the other, he supports, associates with, and minimizes Piper’s well known history. What gives? Explain yourself? How does that follow? His answer to the question at the conference (Panel session #2) rings very hollow. I quote it verbatim in my piece. His answer really isn’t satisfactory, given Pipers own testimony concerning himself and the known history.
I have my suspicions as to why MacArthur does what he does in this regard, but what I am calling for is clarity. Given the known facts how can you say what you say about charismatism and at the same time apparently give a pass to Piper?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Im interested to know what about his answer is incomplete to you? below, i broke down his response and the main points. It’s collectively not sufficient for you?
I’m not sure one can accuse McA (in his association with Piper) of 1) promoting false doctrines, 2) not protecting his flock, 3) not separating from a disobedient brother.Or can you? I am honestly wondering.
I think you’re calling him out on a judgment difference, and that’s just what makes people different, right? The Holy Spirit in him is fine with this, apparently.
are there pastors with differences from you that you still accept and fellowship with? Im not trying to attack, Im just honestly wondering. Like, there’s a church that we just can’t deal with their music, so we don’t go to their music nights, but we’re fine doing some other things with them. do you have relationships like that? I am just honestly wondering.
1. With someone like John Piper, that is a complete anomaly. That is just so … off everything else about him. … It’s not that he speaks in tongues, it’s not that he prophesies, he’s admitted that. It’s just that there is this anomaly in his mind that is open to that. That’s the way he’s always stated that, that he’s open to that, he’s open to that. He’s even made statements like, ‘I don’t know, I’m not sure, I don’t know exactly what to think about all of this.’ That’s a far cry from the propagation side of it and so I look at this with him and even with Wayne Grudem who has made such immense contributions in so many ways, as an anomaly, and I don’t know, and I don’t need to know, where the impulse for this comes from, where the influence comes from. Sometimes it comes from family, sometimes it comes from a spouse, you know we see that, we understand that, I don’t know where these influences come from.
2. But I do know the great body of work that John Piper has done is true to the faith. And John is a friend whom I not only admire but whom I love. And I don’t know why on this front he has that open idea but it is …
3. it is not an advocacy position for the movement and he would and he would join us in decrying the excesses of that movement for sure and even the theology of it.
4. So I think if we start shutting everybody down who has got one thing they are not clear on or … you know, we’re going to really find ourselves alone and uh, that’s going too far.
5. I have no fear that John would ever tamper with anything that is essential to the Christian faith, starting from theology proper all the way through to the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, he’s going to be faithful to the word of God as he understands it in a historical sense.
6. Uh, how to explain anomalies like this… I think at this point this is where love comes in to embrace faithful men …
I haven’t watched the panel discussion Don referenced, above, but this brings to mind another issue. Can a man in the spotlight to the extent MacArthur is ever be consistent? We all are inconsistent, after all. Perhaps the million candlepower spotlight beamed on MacArthur simply brings to light the inherent inconsistency in us all? I listen to and read books by men who aren’t from my own theological camp. If I was “somebody,” I might have enough of a reputation to interact with these men and thus “cooperate” with them. I’m a nobody, however, and therefore I just read their books.
Example:
- I listen to Michael Brown’s radio show a few times a week. He is a charasmatic, Arminian who has been probably the most vocal and theologically astute critic of Strange Fire. I am enjoying one of his volumes on Jewish apologetics. He is a good man and a good scholar.
- I follow James White’s ministry and his Dividing Line podcast. His book on KJV Onlyism was a big influence on me in years past. He is a Reformed Baptist.
- I have read Dr. Michael Kruger’s books on the canon of Scripture and have profited immensely from them. He is also Reformed.
Having said all that, I have theological issues with both Arminianism and some aspects of Reformed theology. Am I a “compromiser,” like MacArthur? If I had a spotlight on me as large as the one MacArthur has to deal with, I’d be eviscerated much worse than he is, I’m sure. Perhaps the spotlight, for better or worse, just highlights the same inconsistencies in MacArthur that we all have.
Just a random thought.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Anne Sokol]Im interested to know what about his answer is incomplete to you? below, i broke down his response and the main points. It’s collectively not sufficient for you?
His point was “there’s nothing to see here, move on, move on.” The fact is that Piper’s view of charismatism is far from the “anomaly” that MacArthur claimed, as Piper himself asserted in his follow-up, posted on his site.
Thus the question, originally asked at the Strange Fire conference, still stands. It hasn’t been answered and it is a logical question given the extremities of condemnation heaped on charismatism by the Strange Fire conference speakers including John MacArthur himself.
[Anne Sokol] I’m not sure one can accuse McA (in his association with Piper) of 1) promoting false doctrines, 2) not protecting his flock, 3) not separating from a disobedient brother.Or can you? I am honestly wondering.
Not promoting false doctrines, but likely 2 and 3. And certainly enabling false teachers.
[Anne Sokol] I think you’re calling him out on a judgment difference, and that’s just what makes people different, right? The Holy Spirit in him is fine with this, apparently.
How would you know this? The Holy Spirit tell you? How would we be able to verify it? The only way we can verify the will of the Spirit is by the Word of God. Piper, in his support of charismatism, supports and promotes people and ideas that are contrary to the Word of God. How can we say the Holy Spirit is “fine” with that?
[Anne Sokol] are there pastors with differences from you that you still accept and fellowship with? Im not trying to attack, Im just honestly wondering. Like, there’s a church that we just can’t deal with their music, so we don’t go to their music nights, but we’re fine doing some other things with them. do you have relationships like that? I am just honestly wondering.
We aren’t simply talking differences of philosophy or personal interpretations/applications that preclude cooperation on a practical level. The root of the issue with Charismatics is “Does God speak through men today as he did in the New Testament?” If the answer is yes, then the canon is not closed (except that the Bible says it is…)
This is a first level doctrinal battle. It is vitally important for Bible believing Christians to be clear on this and realize it isn’t “just another interpretation.” It is much more than that. It is a fundamental issue. Is the Bible and the Bible alone the revelation of God or not?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
[TylerR]I haven’t watched the panel discussion Don referenced, above, but this brings to mind another issue. Can a man in the spotlight to the extent MacArthur is ever be consistent?
Tyler, we are talking about activities - that is always the focus of separation questions, has nothing to do with the books someone is reading.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
You missed the point. I am asking if any man, including MacArthur, can ever really be consistent in who he “cooperates” with. You question his cooperation, or at least his tepid condemnation of, John Piper, in light of the larger focus of Strange Fire. If we each examine our own lives, are any of us consistent to the same standard we hold “big name” folks to, like MacArthur?
You say, “MacArthur is inconsistent!”
I ask, “Aren’t we all hypocrites in that sense?”
The difference may well be that we don’t have spotlights shone on our lives, as he does.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
And no one is asking for perfect consistency. What we are asking is very simple, does MacArthur believe what he says he believes about Charismatism? If so, how can he have anything to do with men like Piper?
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
This is MacArthur’s basic answer about Piper you are not satisfied with:
So I think if we start shutting everybody down who has got one thing they are not clear on or … you know, we’re going to really find ourselves alone and uh, that’s going too far. I have no fear that John would ever tamper with anything that is essential to the Christian faith, starting from theology proper all the way through to the return of the Lord Jesus Christ, he’s going to be faithful to the word of God as he understands it in a historical sense. Uh, how to explain anomalies like this… I think at this point this is where love comes in to embrace faithful men …
This is your question for MacArthur:
Observing this inconsistency makes me wonder how seriously you take this issue. You have made very strong and helpful statements about it. But… if the charismatic error is so serious, how can we work with men who are so intimately connected with it?
These are my thoughts:
- I think we have evidence that MacArthur takes this issue pretty seriously
- Because each church should be a local, autonomous body, your church doesn’t have to work with charismatics if it doesn’t want to.
- MacArthur is inconsistent on Piper. He knows the guy and says he’s not worried about Piper. I think everybody’s inconsistent on some level with who they cooperate with, as I said.
- We don’t have to worry about who MacArthur cooperates with. We don’t belong to his church. We should each form our own opinions and convictions and implement them in our own spheres as best we can.
- I don’t believe any Christian leader, past, present or future, could ever host a massive conference denouncing an entire movement of Christians in one broad stroke and escape accusations of inconsistency.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
1. I dont think, Biblically, you can label John Piper a false teacher.
Not promoting false doctrines, but likely 2 and 3. And certainly enabling false teachers.
2. I disagree with this assertion, somewhat:
We aren’t simply talking differences of philosophy or personal interpretations/applications that preclude cooperation on a practical level. The root of the issue with Charismatics is “Does God speak through men today as he did in the New Testament?” If the answer is yes, then the canon is not closed (except that the Bible says it is…)
This is a first level doctrinal battle. It is vitally important for Bible believing Christians to be clear on this and realize it isn’t “just another interpretation.” It is much more than that. It is a fundamental issue. Is the Bible and the Bible alone the revelation of God or not?
a. In my interactions with and understanding of charismatics, they don’t see the Bible as insufficient. They themselves do not see their dreams, tongues, visions (and yes, I’ve listened to them in real life all in various contexts) as attacking the sufficiency of Scripture.
b. Yes, I will say it aloud: God does speak to us or communicate to us at time outside the Scripture. I will explain from the life of someone else: Nancy Sheppard, wife of Mark Sheppard, missionaries under Baptist Mid-missions, wrote a book Confessions of a Transformed Heart, and there were several instances where she just casually mentions specific thoughts God gave to her. Does it mean His Word was not sufficient? of course not.
Maybe Piper doesn’t see his charismatic tendencies as anomalous. But John M certainly does. So, OK. He didn’t have him speak at his Strange Tongues conf. of course. And now we know where they both stand on this issue. And to them, it is not the serious divide it is to you.
Wish MacA would answer your question but i’m not sure there’ll be any greater illumination even if he did. What answer would you accept from him concerning this? is there any answer you would accept? I am honestly wondering about it.
[Anne Sokol]1. I dont think, Biblically, you can label John Piper a false teacher.
Not promoting false doctrines, but likely 2 and 3. And certainly enabling false teachers.
Neither would I, but he clearly enables false teachers by his endorsement of their material. Again, listen to the material of the Strange Fire conference. He endorses as valid the prophecy of a guy who was removed from the ministry for serious misconduct. Yet he persists in endorsing him.
[Anne Sokol] 2. I disagree with this assertion, somewhat:We aren’t simply talking differences of philosophy or personal interpretations/applications that preclude cooperation on a practical level. The root of the issue with Charismatics is “Does God speak through men today as he did in the New Testament?” If the answer is yes, then the canon is not closed (except that the Bible says it is…)
This is a first level doctrinal battle. It is vitally important for Bible believing Christians to be clear on this and realize it isn’t “just another interpretation.” It is much more than that. It is a fundamental issue. Is the Bible and the Bible alone the revelation of God or not?
a. In my interactions with and understanding of charismatics, they don’t see the Bible as insufficient. They themselves do not see their dreams, tongues, visions (and yes, I’ve listened to them in real life all in various contexts) as attacking the sufficiency of Scripture.
Not what they see themselves as doing - its what they are actually doing. They claim to be speaking from God. They have “a word.” What is that? If it is true, then the Bible is not alone as the revelation of God.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
they are not doing this in all instances—attacking the sufficiency of Scripture. there are issues in life the Bible does not clearly answer for us—the leadership direction an organization should take (I sat in a leadership meeting of pentacostals who had a moment of silence to see what visions God would give them about changing the structure of their organization– were they questioning anything clearly spelled out in Scripture? No. just dealing with practical questions in this way.)
Sure, there are men who are charismatics who claim to be speaking God’s revelatory Word. In my town, Kiev, is Sunday Adelaja, pastor of probably the biggest charismatic church in Europe. Do I think he’s a flake? not always but often. Abusing his position? Somewhat. And there was a financial scandal he engineered. But I don’t think he’s sending people to hell by preaching a different gospel, and I say that from having talked to some of his people and listening to his own preadhing.
And there are also non-charismatic, “Bible” preachers who will tell you God’s will for your life from some verses, or just claiming that they are closer to God b/b they’re the pastor.
My point is that it’s not a level one issue. It’s not saying we need a new revelation in order to be saved.
she just casually mentions specific thoughts God gave to her.
How does she know God gave these thoughts to her?
[Don Johnson]And no one is asking for perfect consistency. What we are asking is very simple, does MacArthur believe what he says he believes about Charismatism? If so, how can he have anything to do with men like Piper?
Don, who gave you the position of holding MacArthur to account? Did anyone ask you to? Are you scripturally commanded to ensure that John MacArthur’s associations and relationships are permissible?
If MacArthur were a member of the FBFI, you might have cause for ‘calling him to repentance’ or calling for ‘clarity’ because there would be an actual relationship there. Last time I checked, he wasn’t a member and didn’t have any real relationship with you or P&D.
"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
Discussion