It is awfully hard to write a blog expressing disagreement. I particularly have trouble when it comes to naming names. I am not saying it is necessarily wrong, I am just saying I don’t do it well. I would rather keep things generic. On top of all this, it is really hard to write criticism about someone whom I respect so much. John MacArthur, the pastor, teacher, author, and Christian spokesman, is a man of God who has brought so much growth in my life in so many ways. He is an incredible Bible teacher who has changed many people’s lives for the better.
(Of course, when something starts this way, nothing before the “but” really matters, does it?)
But . . .
In his “Strange Fire” conference (that starts today), book (upcoming), and ensuing promotions, John MacArthur has, I believe, acted very irresponsibly and is doing incredible damage to the body of Christ.
It is no secret that John MacArthur pushes the polemic line and causes many of us to be uncomfortable. This is just who he is and I don’t really expect him to change. But this conference is an excessively eristic and unnecessarily divisive crusade against charismatics. And, to be frank, it is even over the top for him.
Now, let me make sure you know: I have not seen the conference or read his book. But I have been reading reviews of the book and viewing the promotional videos, created by John MacArthur, for this anti-charismatic campaign. You can see some of the videos here. It is quite the production. And this is not some passing slip of the tongue that may be excused (as is sometimes the case). This is a full-blown, all-out war he has declared.
Please understand that I am not charismatic. I have often expressed myself as the most “wannabe charismatic” non-charismatic you will ever meet. As well, I used to be as anti-charismatic as anyone you would ever meet. Frankly, charismatics made me angry. I attributed all that went on in charismatic circles to the work of Satan. I called, pleaded, and prayed that charismatics would “convert” to cessationism. And my arguments were, at least to me, persuasive.
However, I changed. God put way too many flies in my ointment for me to remain in this excessively polemic position. I suppose the first fly was “what’s his name” that sat next to me in undergrad. He was a charismatic. Worse than that, he spoke in tongues. I practically had a demon next to me! However, all semester long I observed this guy. I came to realize that though he knew everything I knew, he was still charismatic. What gave? I thought the right answers dispatched would bring home the booty of change. But he remained charismatic and continued to speak in tongues (though not in front of me). On top of this, he seemed to love the same Jesus I loved. On top of that, he seemed to follow the Lord better than me. I came to realize he was a better, more devoted Christian than I was. How could that be, if he had a demon? He was the first fly and this fly worked me over.
Eventually, I began to realize there was a whole other world of charismatics I had never met. My primary exposure to charismatics had been through crazy people on television and a highly controversial local pastor. Crazy church services, uninterpreted tongues, being “drunk” in the Holy Spirit, erratic prophecies left unchecked, people barking in the Spirit, and people howling at the moon was all I had known. John MacArthur’s Charismatic Chaos and Hank Hanegraaff’s writings increased my faulty views. But, this one fly — “what’s his name” — disturbed it all and introduced me to something different. This new exposure was filled with intellectual heroes. J. P. Moreland and Wayne Grudem were the next flies. How could these guys who were so theologically astute, thoughtful, balanced, and godly be charismatic? After all, they were thinkers. Charismatics are not supposed to be thinkers!
Soon, the flies became so many that I had to throw out the ointment altogether. Gordon Fee, John Piper, Sam Storms, Craig Keener, C.J. Mahaney, Stanley Horton, and many other scholars made me rethink my position and return to the Scriptures. I now have a relationship with many of these guys and call them friends (one, I call pastor). Of course I have not been convinced by them (as I am not charismatic), but I have changed. No longer am I anti-charismatic. I am a non-charismatic wanna charismatic.
The reason I changed is because I quit characterizing all charismatics by their red-headed ugly stepchildren.
But for some reason John MacArthur hasn’t followed this same path. His criticism of the charismatic movement is more intense than ever. In fact, I would say that it is sinfully irresponsible. (Oh, that hurt to write . . . forgive me, Lord, if I am wrong.) He unnecessarily and continually lumps all charismatics together with practically no distinction. He says that the charismatic “offers to God unacceptable worship – distorted worship.” He calls it “strange fire.” He says they are “Satan’s false teachers, marching to the beat of their own illicit desires, gladly propagat[ing] his errors. They are spiritual swindlers, con men, crooks, and charlatans.”
Now, of course, many who claim to be charismatic do fit this description. I don’t think anyone would disagree.
One of the problems I have observed over the years is that the beginning of a movement is always the easiest to criticize. Many Christian movements in theology and piety are, at their beginning, very unrefined. Sometimes they contain some heretical elements. But over the years, they begin to change, adjust, mature, and sand down the rough edges. Think about dispensationalism for a moment. When someone criticizes dispensationalism, they almost never criticize it as it stands today. Criticism is made of Darby and Scofield. But so much has changed!
It is irresponsible to criticize a movement in a form that has already faded or is fading. Like dispensationalism, the charismatic movement has gone through many maturations. We talk about it in waves: the first wave, Pentacostalism; the second, the Charismatics; the third, led by John Wimber and the “Signs and Wonders Movement.” I think we are in a fourth wave where we have the rise of the “intellectual charismatics.” Either way, things have changed.
More than this, it is irresponsible to criticize the easy targets within a movement. We call this a “straw man” argument. It is when you choose the worst representative you can and argue against him. Of course, with charismatics in popular culture, the easy targets are the “crazies” who get all the air time. Why do they get the air time? Well, it is entertaining for many to watch. And the sensationalism that can come from these abuses is also easy for the non-charismatic to look at and discredit. But think of all the movements which are part of the Christian fold today that could be picked apart because of some abuses and excesses within. The first two that come to mind would be Calvinism and Pretribulationalism. Certainly conferences could be done about both, characterizing each by the worst-of. But how responsible and godly is that? Yes, you may make a qualification at the beginning and the end saying, “Look, I realize that not all Calvinists are arrogant SOBs, but the movement is dangerous. It is filled with monsters who believe God hates unbelievers.” Or, concerning Pretribulationalism, “I know that not all Pretribulationalists are date setters, but the theology is dangerous and produces an unbiblical mentality. It is filled with date-setting and causes people to be unconcerned with this present world.” Of course, these criticisms can be true, but they are not the necessary outcome of their beliefs and, more importantly, they don’t deal honestly with the arguments.
But it is not simply this issue that has compelled me to write this post. If this was the first time John MacArthur had irresponsibly characterized a movement he is against, that would be one thing. But, unfortunately, this is what he is becoming known for. MacArthur is already seen by many as a divisive heresy-hunter.
The worst of it all is that John MacArthur knows of Gordon Fee, Sam Storms, John Piper, and all the others. Yet he does not seem to acknowledge their influence. Why doesn’t he have some of these guys join his conference? They all speak against the same excesses within their own movement. A unified voice would actually be more effective in helping people guard against these abuses.
Because of all this, John MacArthur is losing his voice, and I don’t want him to. His reputation dismantles his platform to speak at just about any conference. He has worked himself into a corner where every time he writes a book or opens his mouth, many of us say, “Oh no!” before anything else. His radio program is called “Grace to You” and we are often left thinking “grace to who?”
John MacArthur says the charismatic movement “blasphemes the Holy Spirit” and “attributes to the Holy Spirit even the work of Satan.” Maybe he should think about who is actually attributing the work of the Spirit to Satan. I am not a charismatic, but such a statement really scares me. And because of this it would seem (even though the conference is sold out) that John MacArthur may be losing his voice.
223 replies to "Why John MacArthur May Be Losing His Voice"
Brendt Wayne Waters,
Your “re-phrasing” of my question indeed completely changes the meaning of what I wrote. I don’t agree, nor did I say that the people at this conference are bearing false witness. That is your accusation, not mine. As far as I can see they are bearing witness to the fact of the bad teachings that characterize and dominate the charismatic movement. And this is a good thing and I applaud them for it.
It is also not accurate, as others have pointed out above, to say that MacArthur has not acknowledged a distinction between “wacky” charismatics and the more theologically balanced ones. He has done so, even at this conference. Another example is Phil Johnson, who at this conference is taking to task Reformed Charismatics like Wayne Grudem for their theological errors.
Michael,
I fear that your sympathy for certain charismatics who are your friends is overriding your cessationistic conviction. You sometimes speak like a wannabe charismatic. But if indeed you believe certain gifts are no longer valid for today then a massive movement that continually emphasizes these gifts portraying them as essential to the vibrant Christian walk is wrong, leads people down the wrong track and ought to be strongly challenged.
Personally I think the continuationism present in some leading reformed thinkers is not a good thing– I think it contradicts reformed principles and opens the door to more error. I think that this conference wants in part to make a case for cessationism– therefore it makes sense they did not invite folks who are not cessationists to speak there. Also it does not seem there is a strong track record on the part of the reformed charismatics to actually challenge charismatic abuses.
Yes, at 74 it is doubtful John MacArthur has heard the best arguments of the various charismatics, from cautious-but-open to the whatever-goes group. Yeah, he should have others with whom he disagrees and invite them to speak in his church since that makes all the sense in the world.
No, actually that would be foolish. He is the shepherd, he guards the flock. He is quite adept at communicating their error. I am sure the charismatics, from soft to hard, are already inviting John MacArthur to their church so he can be the other side of their treatment of the matter….NOT.
However, don’t worry, the conference left a crack in the door by Phil Johnson to give hugs and kisses to Piper, Grudem, and Storms and those like them from whom Johnson has personally benefited, hence they stay in the circle just with a finger wag.
TUAD,
The quote you gave from Turk only reinforces the point that Turk simply doesn’t get it. Charismatics are, like Protestants, too diverse to create the duty for one party to harp on another party for their heretical beliefs. I mean seriously tell me what John Piper and Oneness Pentecostals have in common beyond believing that the gifts are for today? Virtually nothing. Why should John have a duty, as a Reformed Baptist, to speak out against Oneness Pentecostals any more than Turk, as a Reformed Baptist, has a duty to speak out against Luther?? What makes this even more amusing is that many of those who Turk is claiming don’t address the excesses in fact have done so on a number of occasions by preaching against things like the Prosperity Gospel, and placing any authority above Scripture. Are they supposed to preach a sermon every Sunday on this same topic in order for MacArthur to be satisfied?? Who made MacArthur Pope??
Like I said earlier if MacArthur had chosen to do a conference on the beliefs among some charismatics that are heretical no one here would be complaining. The fact that he lumped them all together instead of doing this is what is indefensible and slanderous. Do a conference on the evils of the Prosperity Gospel or the dangers of denying the Trinity!!! No one here is going to take issue with that. He simply didn’t do that and this is what people are taking issue with.
Missy M, nice to see that you caught the spirit of the conference: dismissive and derisive with just a pinch of smartbutt.
To borrow from your tone, yeah, that’s going to successfully persuade people to our way of thinking.
Michael T.: “Charismatics are, like Protestants, too diverse to create the duty for one party to harp on another party for their heretical beliefs.”
I appreciate those Christians and those churches and/or denominations who denounce and disavow the KKK who may have done so out of a call of duty to God. Even though they are diverse in theology from the KKK.
I appreciate those Christians and those churches and/or denominations who denounce and disavow the Westboro Baptist Church who may have done so out of a call of duty to God. Even though they are diverse in theology from the Westboro Baptist Church.
Alex, you apparently don’t understand the concept of re-phrasing. Just because the factual meaning of your statement didn’t change with new wording (and it didn’t) doesn’t mean that you’ll be happy with it or even acknowledge that what you meant was unaltered.
I never said that you said that anyone was bearing false witness. But MacArthur is making sweeping over-generalizations. By very definition this means that what he is saying is not true of some people within the demographic he is decrying. Put simply, he’s lying about some people and it’s irrelevant that what he is saying is true about some portion of the demographic — even a 99.99999999999999999999% majority. It’s still a lie (or to put it in high falutin’ language, “bearing false witness”).
There have been multiple claims that MacArthur has, in this conference, given nods to nuance. Thus far, all of them have simply been someone’s opinion of “what he really meant” and/or interpretations that were proven absolutely false. Does your contention have concrete evidence? If so, I’d love to hear it.
I, and others, have already addressed the irrelevance of Johnson (or anyone else other than J-Mac) addressing the issue. MacArthur made the mess (read: error, sin, etc), let him clean it up (read: confess).
Ralph: “Revisiting the subject through your blog, the comments to the blog and watching the “Strange Fire” conference, I am questioning my “open but cautious” position.
I want to be “irenic” so I wont list all the reasons for rejecting the “Charismatic” movement. I am looking for one reason to accept it. Just one. One reason that is not: “These are nice people who love the Lord.”
Keep the word “nice”. It’s irenic.
Give some consideration to Brenda’s comment in #182:
“I could write volumes here on the error and blasphemy I witnessed in my 10+ years experience as a charismatic. We had mega preachers as well as small local pastor’s visit our congregation- I was exposed to many people and many personalities. I can summarize my experience very simply. They’re worshipping and serving a counterfeit. He looks like Jesus, sounds like Jesus and smells like Jesus. He’s not Jesus.”
She concludes with:
“Thank you John MacArthur for not shrinking from an offensive topic. Your words testify truth in my spirit…the one who has had scales fall from her eyes.”
Brendt
Your sarcasm in your last few posts and particularly your claim JM punked people and accusation that he breached his contract with HC via his subordinates when you know nothing of the matter, factually, is quite derisive and as you termed it “smartbutt”. Let me guess, rules for thee but not for me is your motto.
You have been ranting on and on like a high school sophomore who just lost her boyfriend to her best friend. Make a real argument and learn that adults use sarcasm to make points and other adults don’t get offended instead of using it to make false accusations.
Here is hoping you have enough tissues.
TUAD,
“I appreciate those Christians and those churches and/or denominations who denounce and disavow the KKK who may have done so out of a call of duty to God. Even though they are diverse in theology from the KKK.
I appreciate those Christians and those churches and/or denominations who denounce and disavow the Westboro Baptist Church who may have done so out of a call of duty to God. Even though they are diverse in theology from the Westboro Baptist Church.”
I’m glad YOU appreciate this, but this is quite beside the argument that Turk was making and furthermore, while some churches may vocally condemn this, this does not make it a normative duty to do so in all churches. Every church cannot spend its entire time condemning every false teaching. To some extent you pick and choose based on what you are most confronted with within your church. For instance John Piper spent a lot of time confronting Open Theism because there was another pastor in our Conference who believed this. Additionally in many cases defining the very things that the church is for (e.g. racial reconciliation) will make it clear what they are against (the KKK).
In any case you are making an argument wholly apart from Turks which was that as a Baptist he doesn’t have a duty to condemn Luther’s bad doctrine since he, by definition, disagrees with Lutherans – the job of taking Luther to task is Lutherans. I’m glad you have your own perspectives, but your view is not what is being discussed in my post (or your other posts for that matter) – it is the content of JMac’s and Turks preaching and writings.
“Your sarcasm in your last few posts and particularly your claim JM punked people and accusation that he breached his contract with HC via his subordinates when you know nothing of the matter, factually, is quite derisive and as you termed it “smartbutt”. Let me guess, rules for thee but not for me is your motto.
You have been ranting on and on like a high school sophomore who just lost her boyfriend to her best friend. Make a real argument and learn that adults use sarcasm to make points and other adults don’t get offended instead of using it to make false accusations.
Here is hoping you have enough tissues.”
Pot meet Kettle……..
Missy M, I find it impossible to believe that you don’t know satire when you see it, especially when it is as ridiculous and over-the-top as my “spoilers” analysis. Therefore I can only conclude that you are willfully misrepresenting me.
And, no, my motto (which doesn’t roll off the tongue nearly as well) is actually:
Rules for thee when thy clearly stated purpose from the outset is to win over to thy side those that disagree with thee, but not always for me when I’m simply discussing something.
The rest of your comment is just an ad hominem attack and completely devoid of substance. As such, it is beneath reponse except to note the incredible irony that it tells me to “[m]ake a real argument”.
Brendt,
All I know is that I think MacArthur and the folks at the conference are not lying nor bearing false witness because the errors they point out are happening and doing very real damage. My statements have been very clear. If you want to make accusations against him and the conference you have the right to your opinion, but don’t “re-phrase” my own statement in order to tell me or others reading this what my statement supposedly meant.
The problem I see and agree with MacArthur %100 on is that charismatic theology is running amok in popular Christianity and doing a great deal of damage. The conference by MacArthur addresses this problem, and I have seen evidence that he and others have qualified their presentation and acknowledge that not all charismatics are guilty of the worst excesses.
Michael T.,
Phil Johnson, Frank Turk, et al are wondering or questioning why “careful” continuationists are so passive when it comes to the abuses and excesses in many continuationist churches.
You argue that “careful” continuationists have no duty or no responsibility to do so. And that’s your excuse for the passivity or silence of many of the “careful” continuationists when it comes to the aberrant doctrine and practices of their fellow continuationists.
If that’s the case, why then begrudge the faithful Christians who do step up to address the abuses and excesses in many continuationist churches?
TUAD,
“If that’s the case, why then begrudge the faithful Christians who do step up to address the abuses and excesses in many continuationist churches?”
Apparently you have short term memory issues but this has been addressed. To quote myself.
“Like I said earlier if MacArthur had chosen to do a conference on the beliefs among some charismatics that are heretical no one here would be complaining. The fact that he lumped them all together instead of doing this is what is indefensible and slanderous. Do a conference on the evils of the Prosperity Gospel or the dangers of denying the Trinity!!! No one here is going to take issue with that. He simply didn’t do that and this is what people are taking issue with.”
If someone wants to do a conference on the excesses of certain strains of charismatics and nuance it enough to be clear who they are talking about (e.g. do a conference on the evils of the Prosperity Gospel) then more power to them. MacArthur did not do this and that is the issue. He took them all on. Furthermore to quote myself again….
“What makes this even more amusing is that many of those who Turk is claiming don’t address the excesses in fact have done so on a number of occasions by preaching against things like the Prosperity Gospel, and placing any authority above Scripture. Are they supposed to preach a sermon every Sunday on this same topic in order for MacArthur to be satisfied?? Who made MacArthur Pope??”
The idea that cautious charismatics are silent on the excesses of others is a complete myth. MacArthur is basically saying they aren’t loud enough FOR HIM. One must wonder what percentage of sermons a cautious charismatic pastor must devote to exposing the evils of radical charismatics in order to satisfy MacArthur.
[…] 4. Why John MacArthur May Be Losing His Voice […]
[…] Michael Patton (a non charismatic) talks about how John MacArthur is “losing his voice.” […]
[…] and the Church Staff (Stunning to read how big a problem this is nationally.) Why John MacArthur May Be Losing His Voice (Important article that discusses the attempt by Dr. MacArthur to lump all […]
[…] been made in recent days about California pastor John MacArthur’s Strange Fire conference. Michael Patton, a MacArthur fan, offers a critique of the conference, the book, and MacArthur’…, so I will […]
[…] CREDO HOUSE: WHY JOHN MACARTHUR MAY BE LOSING HIS VOICE […]
[…] C Michael Patton over at Parchment and Pen (and also Credo House Ministries) has declared that MacArthur is losing his voice among Evangelicals, and has also informed the whole world what someone who’s never been part of the charismatic […]