James MacDonald Returns!

There are 7 Comments

Mark_Smith's picture

I try to be consistent. I have never listened to him and I don't plan on listening to him. So for me it is simple.

 

 

Bert Perry's picture

Hopefully he talks more about overcoming his addiction to food while carrying that 50-100 extra pounds he's got in his midsection.  (yes, that's a real part of his book "Authentic", which really ought to be titled "fake")  Not that I'm one to talk--I could stand to lose at least 20 lbs--but at least I'm not bragging about how I'm controlling my appetite for food while being as porky as I am.

Seriously, this is one of those times where Calvary Chapel is speaking quite eloquently of their priorities by ignoring the fact that Harvest showed him the door in no uncertain terms, saying he was not qualified for ministry.  Then he's got the fact that his former CIO just got indicted for theft, and when Mancow published his words on WLS, he got the whole city of Chicago up at arms.

Evidently "good reputation with outsiders" has been thrown by the wayside, and judging from what Mancow played (you can look it up if you like), it doesn't matter if someone is pugnacious, either.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

Andrew K's picture

Mark_Smith wrote:

I try to be consistent. I have never listened to him and I don't plan on listening to him. So for me it is simple.

 

 

Well I have heard him, pre-Disgrace. I won't go into the whys or wherefores. Suffice to say, I was not responsible for the decision.

His sermon was on "humility," of all things. And it was an absolutely horrific exemplar of eisogesis

How does someone like this ever become popular?

Mark_Smith's picture

Andrew K wrote:

 

His sermon was on "humility," of all things. And it was an absolutely horrific exemplar of eisogesis

How does someone like this ever become popular?

I have not really heard him preach a full sermon. I have heard him for a snippet or two from radio broadcasts. I am sure people thought he was an "effective" communicator. The average Christian in the audience doesn't know the difference between eisogesis and exegesis. Nor do they care.... they want something that sounds good and makes them feel good. That's how he does well.

T Howard's picture

Andrew K wrote:
Well I have heard him, pre-Disgrace. I won't go into the whys or wherefores. Suffice to say, I was not responsible for the decision.

His sermon was on "humility," of all things. And it was an absolutely horrific exemplar of eisogesis

How does someone like this ever become popular?

He's a good, entertaining speaker. You know, his style and delivery are superb. Probably uses logic forms and syllogisms too when he speaks. Wink

Bert Perry's picture

Everybody uses 'em.  The question is whether they're one of the valid forms (19 in all, 15 from Aristotle), and whether the premises are correct.  

MacDonald would illustrate, in my view, the differences between what the world views as an effective communicator, and what Scripture would describe as that.  He does very well at telling people what they want to hear, and in "Authentic" Fake, that's very often repurposed prosperity theology.  We might argue that his "good communication" is actually the con man's ability to say things that are flat out false and have people bypass the signs that they shouldn't be believing him.

Much as the apostle Paul might have said the same thing about the pagan philosophers--Luke's description of Paul's interaction with them at the Areopagus does not seem to indicate that Luke, trained by many of these same guys, felt that their theories were even plausible, let alone true.  It's really the same kind of respect that engineers and physics majors show for the liberal arts in major universities.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.