Charisma: To My Fundamentalist Brother John MacArthur: Grace to You Too

I’ve just read a variety of posts and threads both here at SI and elsewhere and feel the need to “share.” This is aimed at no-one and at the same time every-one. Some of this will be “emotive.” I’m sure I’ll violate one of the 15 laws of logic - try to be existential enough to move on.

In the main I’ve stopped commenting (or ranting) on these kind of things because I find it’s not necessary. I also have stopped because I’m sure excesive involvement with this doesn’t help my blood pressure. It seems as if those that see this, really see it and those who can’t see it - really won’t see it. Against my better judgment - I stand once again on an old soap box that I’ve not stood on for some time - with a fresh “rant.”

I have been saying things like this about John MacArthur to “Type A fundamentalists” for at least 20 years - I’ve probably been saying this for at least 25 years. I know for a fact that my public defense of John MacArthur has cost me “would-be-sort-of-friends” and even invitations from certain venues of ministry. I had one guy who once told me - Joel it’s not a problem you like Mac - the problem is you admit to it publicly. Big deal. Oh also - you offend me because you are about ministry politics more than you are ministry integrity.

You Type A fundy’s who have been accusing Mac of being newevangelical are guilty of at least libel - if not other sins of the tongue - and perhaps sins of the heart. Honestly I’m convinced you people are blind! You need Jesus to spit in some dirt and help you with your vision! I have often wondered if you who think Mac isn’t militant enough even know who Mac is? Do you even know what militancy is? I don’t know a current Type A leader who has half of the militancy backbone that MacArthur has - I don’t. You guys stand up in your little groups of 15 people - or even 70 - or even 300 and you think you demonstrate leadership? You demonstrate militancy? Really? Mac just took on the world of charasmatic-leaning evangelicalism - a practice of secondary separation if there ever was one - and yet some of you guys will stay look down your twisted noses at our dear brother near Burbank because he’s not a member of the FBF or GARBC or whatever! (He is a member of the IFCA - oh yes - that’s not fundamentalist enough for some of you guys).

Reality:

Fundamentalism needs John MacArthur far more than Mac needs Fundamentalism. Mac has rejected fundamentalism because fundamentalism has been in doctrine and practice pathetic in more ways than one. (If you want me to qualify what I mean by pathetic - just go back and read what I’ve written before about Type A and even worse - Type A + fundamentalism). Those of you who say MacArthur isn’t a fundamentalist because he’s not militant enough - I’m not even sure what to say to you……so I won’t say anything. I’m just going to not say anything to you except good luck on finding anyone within the world of Bible believing Christianity that has a voice that John has and is willing to use it for a militant defense of “the faith” even though he knows he’s going to take massive shots from the greater world of evangelicalism. Look - if it were me - and if I really cared about the tag fundamentalism and if I cared about the heritage of a militant fundamentalism I would be extremely grateful for John MacArthur and I would put him on the top of my list of “current fundamentalist leaders we can be grateful for.” (even though Mac won’t use the title often because of all the reasons I’ve mentioned before…….).

However - it is exactly because his leadership is attractive and because his leadership is sharper than some of yours - and so young men don’t go to your seminary/institution they go elsewhere - it is here that irks you and so instead of appreciating Mac’s leadership and courage - you will still speak evil of a great man of God because of politics. That my friends is disgusting and that my friends is why fundamentalism (as a movement) continues to die………and perhaps to some degree ……. deserves to die.

Be warmed and filled - I’m really not upset at anyone but I just has a few thoughts that seemed needed to be shared.

Straight Ahead!

jt

JT, you have expressed what I have felt regarding the critics of JM for nearly 30 years. When the infamous blood issue came up, I wrote (it was pre-mail days) JM and he sent me a very thoughtful response that clarified the matter. I even learned what a metonym was! I watched as a well-respected teacher at a prominent Christian institution (yes, THAT one) left his position rather than be associated with attacks like this. He finished his career at Master’s and, while his alma mater consigned him to the realm of those who shall not be named. Master’s named a dorm after him. Type A fundamentalism might criticize itself into insignificance if it hasn’t already.

Ron Bean: The teacher who moved from “a prominent Christian institution” to Master’s played a prominent role in my life while I attended that same prominent Christian institution. He was the “campus dad” of the girl I met and fell in love with my freshman year. In the ensuing years, he counseled us both as we worked through what should and should not be the impact of our differing church backgrounds (I was Nazarene, she was IFB) and the initial opposition of her IFBx/KJVO father. Throughout high school at an IFB Christian school, I had become proficient at debating eternal security. My conversations with you-know-who were of an entirely different tenor, bathed in warm-hearted care for me, which probably made at least as much of an impact as his (new to me) apologetic for eternal security. Two days after we graduated, he married us, and all three of us were overjoyed that he did. Six years later, on a driving tour of the west, we visited him and his lovely wife at their home in Santa Clarita and he proudly drove us around the campus of Master’s. He also introduced me to the NIV Study Bible. In the providence of God, he died a few years before my wife divorced me, leaving me without perhaps the only earthly advocate who might have had the spiritual and personal gravitas to have halted that train. Fond memories of the man.

Darrell,

You cited the first part of my post, and then you asserted that you didn’t see anything there that “indicates MacArthur was wrong, used straw-man argumentation or was unfair.” Yet you didn’t cite the rest of my post that explained why I said what I said:

But some readers may be wondering at this point why I think MacArthur implies such accusations when he doesn’t actually state them. The answer is found in what he doesn’t say. For MacArthur doesn’t even once consider the possibility that they could be motivated by what they believe is a proper exegesis of Scripture. And thus he leaves the false impression that faithfulness to Scripture isn’t — and couldn’t possibly be — what motivates them. Yet, men such as Wayne Grudem and D.A. Carson have written entire books offering an exegetical defense for their respective Continuationist positions, and many who consider themselves open-but-cautious have been so persuaded by Scripture as well. MacArthur must know — whether he agrees with the exegesis offered by such men or not — that they are motivated by faithfulness to Scripture as they understand it, just as I would presume that MacArthur himself is so motivated. But I guess I am trying to be more fair to MacArthur on this point than he has been to some of the men he is criticizing in this video, despite the fact that he avoided mentioning any names.

I also take exception to the way that MacArthur says that such men “provide a certain cover” for the charismatic movement, as though these men haven’t been explicit in their criticisms of the various extremes that often accompany the movement. In fact, the “GTY Staff” member who posted the blog entry in which this video was posted makes this misrepresentation even more egregious when he writes, “Being reluctant to criticize charismatic theology may seem like a safe, middle-ground approach for noncharismatic leaders. But as John pointed out, their silence has given cover to false teachers.” But who is being referred to here? I suppose there are some men like this out there, but I frankly have never met an open-but-cautious man who cares at all about Scripture or doctrine who hasn’t been quite vocal in decrying the many problems and extremes — both doctrinal and practical — in much of the charismatic movement.

So both MacArthur’s video and the blog entry itself make it sound as though being open-but-cautious — and thus also being more vocally Continuationist as well — automatically places one is a situation where he gives cover to false teaching or aberrant practices, and this due to a lack of concern for fidelity to Scripture on their own part.

I would appeal to this blog’s readers, however, to be more fair minded in their assessment of the matter. Whether you are a Cessationist or a Continuationist, surely you can see that there are men on both sides of this issue who care deeply about being faithful to Scriptural teaching, even if they disagree about what Scripture actually teaches on this issue.

This is the explanation for why I said that MacArthur was being unfair. He presented anyone who claims to be open-but-cautious as though he is in the same general category as the extreme Charismatics out there and as though he is just as unconcerned about faithfulness to Scripture.

Perhaps you also didn’t notice that Phil Johnson replied in the comments linking to his own comments at the page where MacArthur’s video was posted and giving examples in defense of MacArthur’s position — most notable among them Wayne Grudem and John Piper — but he did not say that I was wrong in my reading of MacArthur regarding the accusation I claimed that he was making. Instead, he tried to defend MacArthur’s accusation by giving examples to support it. My responses to Phil were as follows:

Thanks for the input, Phil.

I encourage the blog’s readers to follow the link and read what you have written there by way of clarification. It is an excellent example in support of the point John was making, even if I still question whether it was fair for John to generalize the way he did, especially since he himself offered no examples.

And then I added upon further reflection:

You know, the more I think about it, Phil, the more I wonder about the example you gave. I am not sure, for example, whether Grudem, Storms, or Piper would call themselves “open-but-cautious,” and so I wonder whether or not they would actually be good examples of what John was talking about. But I guess there may be some confusion here about terminology. Those I typically meet who would describe themselves as “open-but-cautious” do so precisely because they are more reserved and careful than these three men are about the issues involved. So, whereas Grudem, Storms, and Piper might have failed to denounce certain extremes, those who I have met in Reformed circles who would describe themselves as “open-but-cautious” would not fail to do so. They call themselves “open-but-cautious” for a reason.

However, I readily admit that I am just going by my own experience with such men as I have met them over the past 20 years or more, whether at Covenant Seminary or in my experience as a pastor. But such experience has left me certain that most of them would definitely not fit into the picture painted by John in the video. I know I certainly don’t.

Thus Phil gave examples of men who I have never heard describe themselves as “open-but-cautious” in defense of MacArthur’s accusations concerning those who would call themselves “open-but-cautious.” But, again, Phil did not disagree with my understanding of the accusations MacArthur made; he just apparently disagreed with my assessment that these accusations were unfair.

Let me be quick to point out, however, that despite my disagreement with the assertions of both John MacArthur and Phil Johnson on this point, there are few prominent pastors I would respect as much as I respect these two men. In my view, they have been stalwarts of the faith whose examples should normally be emulated, but neither of them are incapable of being wrong. And thus the title of my earlier post here concerning MacArthur: “We should defend him when he is right.”

[Marsilius]

Really not too bad as a response from a Charismatic leader to John MacArthur’s conference. On CP MacArthur has been taken to task daily. I am glad that the author admitted that there are many “wacky practices” in Charismatic circles. But I am not sure that the argument, that these are kinks in the movement needing to be worked out, holds water. Pentecostalism has been in existence for over 100 years. The Charismatic movement has been in existence for 50 years. Charismatic groups seem to have an abundance of theological, financial, moral and other problems with which they struggle. It just doesn’t stop. I am convinced, like John MacArthur, that the problem lies with the doctrine (or the playing-down of biblical doctrine) in the movement. That is what causes the aberrations. We owe MacArthur a debt of gratitude for his firm teaching on this subject over the years.

All churches have these problems whether scripturally charismatic or cessationist. It is most one sided to imply as your statement does that these are problems that lie in only charismatic churches.

[Darrell Post]

ok, within that link I find this paragraph:

For example, MacArthur wonders why many “prominent, faithful, blessed preachers and theologians” would say that they are open to charismatic phenomena such as tongues, prophecy, healing, etc. He wonders what motivates them, and he suggests a couple of possibilities in response to his own rhetorical question. After he states, “I don’t know what the heart motive is,” he nevertheless suggests a couple of possible motives. First he suggests that “maybe it’s love and acceptance,” but with a tone and in a context that leaves one thinking that he means “maybe it’s love and acceptance devoid of a proper concern for the truth of God’s Word.” Then he suggests that “maybe it’s kind of a personal longing for something more in their spiritual life,” again with a tone and in a context that leaves one thinking that he means “maybe it’s a desire for subjective experiences divorced from a proper concern for the truth of God’s Word.”

I don’t know if its a big deal to suggest some possible motivations. Sounds to me like John is speculating about the motives, and it sounds like the author of this paragraph is speculating about the motives regarding why John would speculate about motives. A lot of “maybes” and “thinkings” and “suggests” but I don’t see anything here that indicates MacArthur was wrong, used straw-man argumentation or was unfair.