James MacDonald fired as Harvest Bible Chapel pastor

I understand that I’m not as adroit at playing seven degrees of separation as others are, but recording a video with some one is a far cry from “ministry partner.” Dever also made some recordings several years ago with Dr. Mark Minnick. I’m pretty sure no one is going to mistakenly view the two as ministry partners.

Mark Dever’s entire public ministry is a rebuke of James MacDonald. And as far as I can tell, it’s not Dever’s responsibility to call him out publicly or privately (and you don’t know what he said privately to the man). And it’s not his responsibility because whatever association he has with MacDonald is far on the “good” end of the seven degrees of separation game.

Look, I get that some of these men make good boogie men for fundamentalists, but lumping someone like Mark Dever with someone like James MacDonald is wrong.

The entire mess is so sad and depressing. These allegations are enough to turn the stomach of the unsaved and here they are in the home of God’s people.

I wonder if John Secrest will get his church in Naples back now.

Praying for HBC and the people picking up the pieces.

John, my take is that when one’s behavior gets to a certain point, one does not share a platform with them, except as perhaps a matter of debate. That was, after all, the big objection with Elephant Room 2, no? I’m not saying that MacDonald is as bad as Jakes—though he did say some things which were at least comfortable to those endorsing prosperity theology and modalism—but in 2014, there were certainly well known reasons that one might refuse to share a platform with him.

Does that mean I’m associating MacDonald with Dever? Absolutely not. What it means is that I believe it is a mistake to share a platform in certain cases, and that was probably one of them. MacDonald appears to have “fed off” the apparent acceptance and/or approval of his peers to think that everything was fine, and those who invited him to share a platform bear some degree of responsibility for enabling him instead of warning him his ship was headed for the rocks.

Did you watch the video, Bert? Dever was clearing “sharing the platform” as a matter of debate. How can anyone watch that video and leave with the impression that Mark Dever enabled James MacDonald?

MacDonald resigned from TGC in 2012 after prominent TGC affiliated people publicly (and privately) criticized him for his relationship with T.D. Jakes, among other criticisms. I don’t know if the video with Dever was recorded before or after that. The video I linked to was posted on YouTube in 2014 (and not by TGC), but it was recorded earlier, how much earlier I don’t know. I do know, as I stated earlier, Dever’s entire ministry (writing and preaching) serves as a rebuke of MacDonald. And, again, and I can’t stress this enough, YOU do not know what Dever said to MacDonald privately. Dever does not bear responsibility for Macdonald, and expecting him to make some sort of public denunciation is uncharitable.

Discipline, regulation, correction (or whatever similar word you wish to use) by those not associated with the church is difficult in congregational church polity in churches that are basically autonomous. This type of church polity puts the burden on the leadership in that church to hold people accountable, and often they are slow to do so for a variety of reasons. Outsiders who have occasion for ministry with church leaders involved in questionable behavior or beliefs have a Biblical responsibility to say something in private (therefore, we don’t know what Dever of anyone else did or said). However, I wonder if someone in SBC leadership is willing to talk to Greear about his recent behavior at his church? Since he is President of the entire denomination, surely this behavior deserves rebuke. Although the situations are not the same, if we are going to wax eloquent about what people should have done or said to MacDonald, shouldn’t we wonder when someone will say something to Greear?

[John E.]

Did you watch the video, Bert? Dever was clearing “sharing the platform” as a matter of debate. How can anyone watch that video and leave with the impression that Mark Dever enabled James MacDonald?

MacDonald resigned from TGC in 2012 after prominent TGC affiliated people publicly (and privately) criticized him for his relationship with T.D. Jakes, among other criticisms. I don’t know if the video with Dever was recorded before or after that. The video I linked to was posted on YouTube in 2014 (and not by TGC), but it was recorded earlier, how much earlier I don’t know. I do know, as I stated earlier, Dever’s entire ministry (writing and preaching) serves as a rebuke of MacDonald. And, again, and I can’t stress this enough, YOU do not know what Dever said to MacDonald privately. Dever does not bear responsibility for Macdonald, and expecting him to make some sort of public denunciation is uncharitable.

The point I’m trying to bring up here, John, is that even if I assume Dever did a great job rebuking MacDonald in private, all of that would be undone as soon as he shared a platform with him in public. Having watched the video, it’s clear that the issues being raised are of the megachurch, the multi-campus church, and the like, not the specific issues being raised with Harvest at the time/during the previous few years. I submit to you that at least people like MacDonald interpret a friendly public debate on another issue as an affirmation that “those other issues are not that big of a deal.” Other examples of leaders who have interpreted things this way include Mark Driscoll and Tullian Tchividjian.

Is Dever hugely implicated in MacDonald’s sins? No. But I think we’re foolish if we don’t consider the strong likelihood that many leaders, in particular those who head megachurches, will tend to interpret a friendly public platform as a sign that all is well elsewhere.

I submit to you that at least people like MacDonald interpret a friendly public debate on another issue as an affirmation that “those other issues are not that big of a deal.”

This has been the fundamentalist concern that has been pretty widely mocked for a while.

[Larry]

I submit to you that at least people like MacDonald interpret a friendly public debate on another issue as an affirmation that “those other issues are not that big of a deal.”

This has been the fundamentalist concern that has been pretty widely mocked for a while.

Sure, it’s mocked, but it’s really a subset of a principle that every parent and law enforcement officer knows; real consequences, not private messages, drive people to change behavior. It’s a basic psychological principle of motivation, really,as well as Biblical anthropology. The Scripture witnesses to this fact as Paul mentions several people who are no longer in fellowship with the saints because of sins they have committed, and as well when John notes (3 John 10) that he will “call attention” to what Diotrephes is doing. You see it as well in the order of discipline in Matthew 18:15-19. The first step is private; when repentance is not achieved, you go to the next, public steps.