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"
Michael T.: “Rather certain groups within the larger group should merit our concern.”
Okay. Which certain groups within the larger group of continuationism do you have a concern about, Michael T.?
Relevancy??? There are numerous ones that I have issues with for various reasons. Often it is certain leaders that I have issues with rather than whole denominations. As an example I grew up in the Baptist General Conference. Within this Conference both John Piper and Greg Boyd are influential well-known leaders who head mega-churches. I disagree strongly with both of them on major theological issues, but i evaluate them individually. Your question is like me asking which strains of Protestantism do you disagree with (most of them, right)?
So went to the hospital the other day, I had a broken toe!
Imagine my surprise when the Doctor took out a baseball bat and started whacking my ankle and then my shin and then my knee! I thought he, with all his knowledge, training and resources was supposed to help me get better! Instead he made it worse, now I’m in hospital on pain meds and in traction. Everyday he comes back and beats me some more! Tomorrow he moves on to my head and I will die.
This is the church folks. When someone slips up or gets things wrong, please don’t beat them down til’ they leave.
I’m not a continuationist – too skeptical, but I attend a full blown prosperity gospel lovin’ rolling in the aisle, word of faith church. It is painful, but I go there to try and be educational to them. Not in a patronising way, I just ask people questions mostly, helping them think issues through more thoroughly before accepting what they are fed. They know I am a calvinist, yet speaking to them with respect not only defeats sectarianism, a tool of the devil, it fulfills John 13:35. They know I disagree with them and that my pastors words are somewhat painful too me.
You want to know where this has got me? Respected, loved, valued and united even in diversity.
I have been asked to write a curriculum for them. I have been doing a twenty session course for a few months now.
Maybe if we put down the gloves and got out the ring so to speak, we could actually send missionaries into our churches to teach and help people get a grasp of scripture.
Someone already posted the unity, liberty, charity quote, so I won’t but it’s worth rememberng.
It might be helpful to look at other critical analyses of the charismatic movement and compare the tone and evenhandedness to John MacArthur’s. J. I. Packer in 1984 and 1989 offered critical interaction with the charismatic movement. A few of his thoughts:
“Doctrinally, the renewal is in the mainstream of historic evangelical orthodoxy on the Trinity, the Incarnation, the objectivity of Christ’s atonement and the historicity of his resurrection, the need of regeneration by the Holy Spirit, personal fellowship with the Father and the Son as central to the life of faith, and the divine truth of the Bible. There is nothing eccentric about its basic teaching.”
and
“But even if the charismatic movement has no more to give to the church than it has given already, it is surely strange that it should ever be dismissed as not “from God”–that is, as manifesting throughout something other than God’s grace, so that every element of it should be explained as merely human or actually demonic. Yet that verdict has on occasion been voiced.”
He adds:
“The charismatic renewal has brought millions of Christians, including many clergy, to a deeper, more exuberant faith in Christ than they had before. It has quickened thousands of congregations, invigorating their worship, making love and fellowship blossom among them, increasing their expectancy and enterprise, and giving stimulus to their evangelism. Charismatic insistence on openness to God has transformed countless lives that previously were not open to him. Is this from God? The question answers itself.”
I quote more of this article from Packer here:http://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2013/04/strange-fire-and-responsible-criticism-2.html
You mentioned how you changed because of individuals That you know who are *charismatic*.
I know many Mormons who are great family loving people, does this mean that it would be wrong for me to say that the LDS Church is not of God?
This appears to be your line of reasoning.
Please correct me if I’m wrong or have misunderstood.
After reviewing your post again your critique appears to be more about style. I just watched a about 20mins of a sermon that McArthur gave entitled Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, while I don’t agree with everything he says his critique of the Pentecostal movement was specific and appeared to be justified on biblical grounds. I understand that you would prefer he take a more gracious tone but can you understand why he doesn’t?
I went to an Assemblies of God church in high school and to an AG college. Do you know what it’s like when all your peers are speaking in tongues and you’re down at the altar for the hundredth time, weeping and wondering what sin in my life was keeping me from receiving the gift of the Spirit that God wanted me to have?
Is it of God for a teen to spend years in confusion and emotional turmoil because they know and everyone else knows that there is this sin that is keeping from the baptism of the Spirit?
Is it off God to be told that despite being in the youth choir for years and in Bible quiz, that my hearts desire to be a missionary or pastor would never happen unless I have the initial physical evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is speaking in tongues?
Perhaps it was of God when in junior high I went to an AG youth conference and ended up calling home close to 11pm because they had to have all the youth leave the auditorium because after hours of emotional worship demonic spirits that were possesing two people decided to emerge and have them on the floor foaming at the mouth and in convulsions while the students stood around them praying in tongues but to no avail.
Ironically…
Michael T.,
You should be able to answer the question. You stated a criteria. I merely asked you to abide by the standard you yourself posited.
No need to weasel out.
TUAD,
I’ll name three (which of course is just a start). The Oneness Pentacostal movement, Joel Osteen, and the Word of Faith movement.
There you have some that I disagree with (and strongly so). Care to let me in on the relevancy? Or do you just like asking random questions and demanding answers?
Apollo,
It is not so much that you misunderstood it is that I was not very clear. “What’s his name” loved the same Jesus. What I meant by that was that his theology was good. As well, with those other guys, Piper, Storms, etc I assume too much. I should have explained that their theology was very good. Saying they were intellectuals was not enough.
Amen there “Apollos”, this subject brings out more emotion then bible and theology! I am basically a cessationist on the so-called sign-gifts myself, but as I said I do practice speaking in what I believe to be the gift of prayer tongues or glossolalia, (1 Cor. 14: 2). But I was raised Irish Roman Catholic, and saw the Catholic Charismatic movement in the early 70’s. And I was a English Catholic Benedictine monastic for a few years back in my mid 20’s. My tour attached (myself a Royal Marine Commando) to the American Marine 3rd Force Recon in the Nam (’68), pressed me into searching for God for awhile in the monastic life. But, from there, in God’s providence, time and purpose, I left and became an Anglican Reformed, etc. I was actually already an Augustinian as a RC. I say all this, for we all come from some experiential place in our lives!
TUAD,
You know I really can’t think of a single continuationist movement I have a major issue with.
Now if the above statement were true (which it isn’t) how would that be relevant to the ideas I’ve presented? Truth is I disagree with most of those under the umbrella, just as I disagree with most Protestants (even though I am one).
To satiate your curiosity – Osteen, Word of Faith, Oneness Pentacostal, T.D. Jakes (to name four of many)
Brendt, Warnock said that JM believes that EVERYTHING charismatics attribute to the Spirit is the work of demons.
That simply isn’t true. MacArthur made no such sweeping statement. So, that wasn’t “distilling”, that was Warnock misrepresenting MacArthur.
Michael T,
“Truth is I disagree with most of those under the umbrella, just as I disagree with most Protestants (even though I am one). ”
Good statement that we all need to consider.
It’s kinda like doing a conference that is against Complementarians called “Wife Beaters”. Someone could say at the beginning “I realize that not all Complementarians are not wife beaters.” Then go on for the rest of the conference saying “Complememtarians would have you believe…” “Complementarianism is the most dangerous movement in the church.” “Complementarians suppress women.” At this point the qualification at the beginning makes no difference, does it?
This would be a whole different issue if everyone speaking, having qualified the “good guys” like Piper Driscoll, DA Caron, and Keener,the “the radical continuationists” or “bizzare revivalist”. Then his examples can come though people like Hagin or Hinn.
Apollos,
I know exactly what that’s like. What you just described is me. I remember when I was 8 yrs old being pushed over by a traveling minister who tried to say it was the Holy Spirit, I just stood right back up and went back over to him and said ‘you pushed me over’ in front of everyone lol. He said ‘no I didn’t’, and laid his hand on my head and did it again. So I got back up again and went back to my seat humiliated. I have had to forgive a LOT for that kind of thing.
I never spoke in tongues or felt any tingling except bitterness and anger but was basically made to feel it was my fault. I was told that I needed to start saying ‘shouldaboughtahonda’ etc. and then ‘it will come’.
But after having left church altogether (as a result of years of this) in my early twenties, I have gone back to the penties and am trying to show them how damaging this can be in all it’s facets.
It CAN be harmful, but I agree with CMP, perhaps lets not just dismiss all of them as heretics and even try and talk with them?? I for one think most of those people are well meaning and worth the effort of talking with, not trashing.
I think all Baptists are legalistic and graceless twits. My only encounter with them after all is Westboro Baptist Church…
“Pure Sarcasm Here!” I actually know and like many great people within the Baptist movement.
Shouldn’t the real question be ‘how do we seek to find unity in diversity’?
Can we not practice what Christ preached?
I am genuinely not seeing this being taught or sought.
[…] My heart was a bit heavy as I witnessed the blogosphere light up today over John MacArthur’s Strange Fire conference and the broad brush stroke polemics against Charismatics. I appreciated Michael Patton’s thoughts on the subject. […]
I respect John MacArthur and have read much of his writings. However, I am put off by the way he viciously attacks other believers over questions that are open for debate among believers but are not essential to the gospel message and are open for debate among Christians. I appreciate zeal but zeal can be misplaced and misdirected.
Susan, not a single promo video even IMPLIES that MacArthur means anything except “everything”. And he’s been at this far too long to simply be clumsy in his wording over a dozen times. Spin-doctoring by the JM apologists aside, I haven’t read anything from the conference that changes this perception.
“I remember when I was 8 yrs old being pushed over by a traveling minister who tried to say it was the Holy Spirit”
I had a similar experience. I went up with an open mind, about everyone else falling down all over the ground. With a mind neither to resist it particularly, nor to succumb either.
The minister put his hand on my head and kind of pushed me in a way that would make it hard to not just go lie down.
Michael- I understand and appreciate that your approach to theological differences is highly irenic. In general I think this is a good approach in that it is respectful and allows for a real give and take in discussion, and perhaps real learning occurs. That being said, it seems to me that the Strange Fire conference arises to oppose the bad teaching characteristic of most of the charismatic movement. If all or most charismatics were of the caliber of John Piper, Wayne Grudem and Sam Storms, I don’t think a conference such as Strange Fire would be happening. But the fact is that the majority of popular charismatic teaching is not careful and balanced as is the teaching of these men. Its emphasis is not on proper interpretation of Scripture, but on the pursuit of experiences of all kinds. Yet it has been perhaps the fastest growing segment of Christianity for many years and is far-reaching–so the damage being done by the movement is not to be underestimated. I am speaking as one for who a time was myself lured into the charismatic view. What motivated me, as I believe many others, was a desire for a deeper experience with God. Now in itself this is not necessarily wrong. But in the charismatic movement I observed that this desire usually becomes divorced from scriptural expectations and moorings, and many are seeking after miracles, special experiences, prophecies, tongues and leadings, even demanding that one must have these things to be a faithful, obedient and truly Spirit-filled Christian. It is argued that the early church had all these experiences continually; that this is what New Testament Christianity really looks like and we must capture this again. But most of what we find in the movement is laughable & counterfeit. The miracles are not NT quality miracles; neither are the tongues/prophecies/interpretations NT quality. And the error rampant in the movement simply cannot be ignored because it is misleading well-meaning Christians worldwide.
In the first five years I was in Christ, nobody had more of an impact on me than John MacArthur. Since then I rarely ever listen to him – he’s always angry about something.
I will be eternally grateful for MacArthur, but I don’t need the robotic, study the Bible so I can heartlessly obey what it says because God is sovereign and holy anymore.
A good number of former Pentecostal/charismatic/continuationists support the arguments set forth by the Strange Fire speakers. These are credible insiders.
I have no problem with CMP’s commentary. I am a former charismatic who is now a soft continuationist. The gifts are there but God decides when they are used, not us. I don’t like McArthur’s stridency. If he made reasoned appeals rather than purposely hurtful assaults, his message would receive a broader reception and might cause come charismatics to do a little thinking. I experienced the full charismatic experience right down to the oppressive legalisms of “you must pray this way or God doesn’t hear it” and rushing around to places where the Holy Spirit is “breaking out”. I left the movement when the church I was in decided to go on the attack against cessationists as if somehow they were the enemy. I still have many good friends in that church and we get together regularly for coffee. Things in that church have eased somewhat and they are once again back to having a real Bible-study of a sermon. If I had been in Sam Storm’s church I might still be in the charismatic movement. I think that McArthur should attend a Rupertus Melendes conference. “On the major things unity, on the minor things tolerance, on all things love.”
Alex, I agree with you. In my 10 years in a charismatic church I saw it go from a good mix of excellent Bible teaching going through an entire book at a time, to becoming focused only on the things of miracles or teachings that supported the gifts. Every sermon ended up being a lesson on the Gifts. Now, that was just one church. But even the nationally known charismatic speakers that I encountered did the same thing. The one thing that I saw over and over, and this might be the crux of McArthur’s beef, was virtually know mention of sin and salvation. Indeed, I encountered charismatics that had no interest in the things of the Cross unless they pertained to miracles and healings. I know that isn’t the case in every charismatic church. However, I’ve seen it in a lot of them. For them salvation is just the step that you take before you can get the gifts. If this is the sort of thing that McArthur is addressing, then more power to him. But if he is just having a theological temper tantrum, then I’m not interested. Life today can make a person angry enough without a Christian leader encouraging more anger for the sake of…what? Indeed, what is McArthur’s endgame? I don’t think that he has even thought that far ahead.
TAUD. Actually converts are sometimes the least balanced. I wrote on this a LONG time ago. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/06/convert-tainted-glasses/
Sadly, Joni Eareckson Tada allowed her physical issues to be exploited to prop up MacArthur’s views. Challies reports that “As MacArthur said in his closing comments, if anyone has the faith to be healed, it must be her.”
Throughout my sojourn in the Reformed community, I was taught (by the Reformed luminaries of the day, including MacArthur himself) to despise the concept that salvation was even 0.000000000000001% man, but rather that it was 100% God. But suddenly, when it comes to physical healing, God needs us to throw in and have our own faith?
Suddenly, it’s clear why MacArthur feels so free to dump on Piper, Grudem, Mahaney, Chandler, etc. He’s obviously leaving the Reformed ranch. Will Piper tweet “Farewell, John MacArthur” tomorrow?
Mac is one of a few men willing to address the heretical teachings associated with the prosperity garb today. There’s little I disagree with Mac on, having spent the fist 20 years of my Christian life associated with the likes of Copeland, Jakes, etc… Someone needs to address this trash for what it is. I wrote a book about it, but because most publishers publish this trash as Christian literature my book was dropped like a hot potato. I hope Mac pisses enough ppl off to cause the masses of churched ppl to listen to what he has to say. Just maybe the elect will hear what GOD has to say and will run away from this lie!
Brendt, I listened to MacArthur’s talk today and he did not say or imply that all the works of the spirit as the charismatics see them are works of satan. He did qualify that there are some pastors who are gospel preachers, and there are some others who’s churches are characterized by all manner of chaos. He did not put all charismatics in the same box.
William, that’s interesting. Because the first name I think of when I think of someone preaching against the prosperity “gospel” is John Piper, someone into whom MacArthur is currently ripping.
I won’t even bother going into the fact that MacArthur is going after a LOT more than just the prosperity “gospel”.
Susan, so did he also say that those promo videos were gross mischaracterizations of his point, and that he was firing his entire video team? Because (unless he’s being insulated by his handlers) he HAS to know that the promos came across as harshly as I suggest to many people who are much more influential than I. And if that’s the case, and he has ANY interest in correcting the problem, rather than just smugly pointing it out, he would have cleared up the mischaracterization from the outset, so that those troubled by the promos would be much more apt to listen to what he said.
I am not a charismatic, but such a statement really scares me.
Well you should be scared.
I was saved out of the so called charismatic movement and I can tell you that blasphemy of all sorts is part and parcel of this movement. Let me explain.
In the years before I was involved in the AOG I worked in mainly blue collar jobs with people from many ethnic backgrounds. I picked up a considerable amount of other languages or bits at least and in that environment the bits I learnt were mainly the swear words.
I was “saved” into the AOG church 30 odd years ago and when all the fall on the floor and carry on began here in Australia I heard every one of those swear words said at various meetings in the name of speaking in tounges.
Somebody has to speak out and bring the truth to this movement. You can’t tell me that people like Benni Hinn and the Copelands speak the truth.
Hundreds of millions of dollars every year go to the false apostles and prophets and no one seems to mind.
People like John do and in love they try to get others to see the truth. You think that they enjoy this task? Somebody has to do it. People need to know that they are on the wide path and not the narrow. My personal belief is that you are playing to the charismatic movement by stating their oft proclaimed statement of judge not. We are commanded to rightly test the Word.
I thank God for people like John who have bought the truth of God’s Word to me.
[…] Why John MacArthur May Be Losing His Voice […]
Having looked through the comments, am I the only one who gets heartily sick to death of all this strife? I have no problem with JM criticising Wordless Charismaticism in the strongest possible terms, but please avoid Graceless Calvinism in the process, and hitting out at godly men with ‘friendly fire’ as though they were little different from the fruitcakes no-one with an open Bible supports.
Much as I would certainly agree with Frank Turk on opposing false doctrine and practice, there is something wrong with the Pyro’s approach to this that niggles me, and I can’t quite put my finger on it. It’s not just the tendency to argue against any continuation of gifts using similar arguments as atheists do against anything supernatural, I get the feeling there is a Pharisee (which we all have lurking somewhere within us) coming out here – ‘I thank thee, Lord, I am not like these poor charismatics – I’ve learnt Hebrew and Greek, the secondary standards and church history’. I am the only one here?
I am certainly not against a vigorous intellectual component to Christianity – biblically taught renewed thinking is vital, but no-one ever was ‘filled with the Holy Spirit’ or endued with power and love from on high by reading books – not even reading the Book, but rather by asking for what the Book infallibly and inerrantly says its author is willing to bestow.
Some of us believe in the various gifts because of the bible, not in spite of it, and regard relegation of this to the past as a form of theological liberalism – sound evangelical perhaps, but sound asleep!
is there another teacher whose verse by verse teaching is so widely available free for anyone;
who has such great zeal to prepare God’s people for the times ahead ( 2 Thess 2:9)
with such zeal to protect God’s people: 1) such a message from Joni Erickson Tada yesterday-the Lord is only good and has His purpose in not granting physical healing and many not even interested in seeking spiritual healing He promises; and this concern: 2) http://www.gty.org/Blog/B130724
yet, too, mustn’t we each grieve the Spirit sometimes, denying in our hearts the Lord’s absolute power; and also lacking humility not confessing we know in part for now.
May the Lord Himself continue providing us great faith, discernment, protection from deceit and schemes for the difficult times ahead and have us rely on His Word that it may continue to come in word, power, and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction (1 Thess 1:5 )
and let us too pray, for when the Son of Man comes, we want that He will find faith on the earth Luke 18:8
People like John Piper and C.J. Mahaney may be more well known now than they were 10 or 20 years ago, but well known does not always equal influence. I’m really surprised you think that the “third wave” (signs and wonders) is fading and the “fourth wave” (intellectual charismatics) is taking over. I don’t see that at all. I see the “third wave” alive and well and on the increase while the “fourth wave” is a small minority having nearly zero impact on the “third wave” and content to keep to themselves. Don’t get me wrong– I would LOVE to see Piper et al clean house, I just don’t see it happening right now.
Let’s try this: replace every instance of “charismatics” in this article with “deniers of penal substitution.”
Does the fact that the guy you knew in undergrad was (otherwise) a “really devoted Christian who really loved Jesus” and the fact that there are “all kinds of [otherwise] really reputable scholars” who nevertheless believe this ONE THING (in this example, that penal substitution has no Scriptural warrant) in *ANY* way change that this ONE THING is still a serious error? Would such examples really give us adequate warrant for denying penal substitution ourselves?
a, the bona fides that you cite early on in your comment only make what MacArthur is doing now 100 times worse, as many who are familiar with the bona fides will simply accept this error as truth. Jesus told us that “to whom much is given, much will be required.” J-Mac has been given MUCH influence; and he’s squandering it on a secondary issue, and broad-brushing to boot.
“robotic”? Mac is anything but robotic! Btw, I wonder if any remember his father: Jack MacArthur? Also a pastor! And Mac is simply older than most of the bloggers here, and from a much different generation, I might add at 74! Though, he has only ten years on me (1939 to 1949). I wonder too if any Americans know that Mac’s father was a removed cousin of Gen. Douglas MacArthur? True! I was raised to show respect to such men! But then most of my Irish Brit family: father, uncles, and some great uncles fought in WW II! Sadly it appears many in the 20-30 generation (both American and Brit’s), don’t have a clue of memory here! So lets try to show some respect here shall we? even if we don’t agree! But surely the Church of God is in most troubled times, and we need men like MacArthur, even with all of his imperfections! And just where are the “prophetic” pastor-teachers today?
*Btw, all hail the Mac Study Bible! Mine is an NASB. (But then I have almost every Study Bible known to man! 😉 Indeed back to the Bible, or as we Anglicans say…Holy Scripture!
FR. Robert – I became a Christian in an Anglican church, proof if ever needed that the age of miracles is not over! I have learnt much with gratitude from its teaching ministries as well (e.g. St. Helens).
Like the charismatic movement, there is also much wrong in the C of E, but it would be wrong to concentrate only on the bad or only on the good. Either extreme does not represent the whole.
As an afterthought, I wish we could get away from talk of blaspheming the Spirit. I think what is going on here (both sides included) is grieving the Spirit in wrong attitudes or quenching the Spirit in relegating some aspects of his work to history.
It is only possible for unbelievers to blaspheme the Spirit, which may well apply to the faith healing charlatans and their ilk JM wants to combat, but not Christians however immature or badly taught they may be.
[…] his forthcoming Strange Fire. In addition to Brown’s final appeal, Michael Patton wrote on why he thinks MacArthur may be losing his voice and provided some extremely helpful reflections on why MacArthur wasn’t being as thoughtful […]
@Another Ken: Yes, regeneration and the new birth is still the greatest miracle of God! 🙂 The early Cranmeran Thirty-nine Anglican Articles, with the later Irish Articles 1615 (Archbishop Ussher), are still historically and theologically profound!
And whatever has become of the Charismatic Movement? it is surely well beyond the movement I saw in the 70’s and 80’s!
I have not jumped into this because I’m increasingly seeing JM as background noise, although his choir still sings at the top of their lungs.
So as I see it, CMP’s post is generous. For me JM is not losing his voice, he lost it some time ago. I hear nothing he says. Which is significant because I used to listen to and benefit from his radio broadcast every week. Yeah, that was then, this is now.
The other thing I’m noticing is how devoted his followers are, as if they can see no one else. It reminds me of a guy who just left my church because I don’t preach the same stuff as Joseph Prince. It’s like there are strong similarities between JM followers and WOF followers – each group is so focused on the individual teacher that they can see and hear nothing else. How ironic is that?
I’d say listen to the conference and read the book before writing such a critique. As someone who grew up in the Charismatic movement i’m finding John to be spot on. Its about time someone in evangelicalism stood up to the heresies being perpetrated in this denomination. It’s sad and dishonorable to God and His holy Word.
Dave Z, it’s very ironical, and yet fairly common. The faith tradition that I grew up in was virulently and violently anti-Roman Catholic. And yet so much of what they did fit perfectly into RC practice (or at least their interpretation thereof). There was a distinct division between clergy and laity. There was an excessive veneration to the point of near-beatification of people in the Bible (instead of recognizing that they were schmoes just like you and me). Works were constantly harped upon. Etc etc etc.
CMP,
Love you brother. That’s established. But do thoughtfully consider the respectful objections from a number of folks that it was unwise to have written your condemning post before the Strange Fire Conference had even started.
Prudence and wisdom, plus your own track record, would have cautioned you to not jump the gun prematurely in a rush to condemn. That’s really not like you. Actually, so unlike you. And very out of character.
Read this comment from a reader on Challies post about Joni Eareckson Tada:
“I have never watched a live conference via streaming. I couldn’t be happier that I decided to make this the first one. I had my concerns after reading Michael C. Patton’s plea to John MacArthur to reconsider his purpose for this conference and even your prelude remarks about it Tim although I found yours more insightful and packed with better understanding and maybe more respect. Still I was expecting some red flags, some over zeal against, condemning loud exhortations, naming names and shame on you’s pulpit pounding things. I was foolish to do so. The opposite could not be truer. None of that was present – sound Biblical teaching was however very present. Inspired teaching I think. So far I am very impressed and blessed. I already liked John MacArthur, I don’t agree with everything he teaches but I gladly sit before him and learn. And I have a great deal to learn.”
TAUD,
There are three substantive elements to the “Strange Fire” campaign: the book, the conference, and the 16 video blogs. Quoted from the video blogs and excerpts from the book. But most of this is a response to the video blogs. These provide substantive arguments and are more widely distributed than the book or the conference.
I have been listening to the conference and I heard Joni. Nothing had changed. If they would retract and greatly qualify what the video blogs said, then that would be great. But they have not.
Please respond to this attempting to understand where I am coming from. See these 16 videos as video blogs highly shared and viral. See these are what people come to the conference with preinderstading about. Then see the conference as a simple attempt justify their over the top and divisive stand. This is on par with what MacArthir has done for years. Just because we may agree with the individual arguments give us no right to misrepresent so many.
Michael– it is Christianity that is on the whole being misrepresented by the charismatic movement. But you seem much more concerned that a few charismatics– that is, those more careful in their exegesis of Scripture, who present more solid biblical arguments for what they believe, whose theology is more sound– not be misrepresented at the Strange Fire conference. But that is not the point of the conference. What of the millions being misled by the insane and utterly unbiblical teachings that go on in the name of Christ in this movement? These are folks that desperately need to be rescued from this false teaching. They need bold teaching that makes it patently clear what the errors are, so that can see it and escape it and embrace good teaching that will actually help them.
Alex, I believe that 90 percent of all professing Christianity are had eggs. The mainstream media normally only puts on tv these people who either don’t know what they are talking about, are nuts, or are involved in some scandal. I want the media to put the minority on the camera to help perception and influence.
I believe that 90 percent of Calvinists are SOBs. I don’t want them to either be the rep tentative of calvinisms or Calvinists. Why? Because the best representative have the power to change and influence both the population and those bad eggs
Not only is this bunch not representing the best- of but they, like the media , are hiding them in order to exploit through fear. It is unwise and irresponsible. These people are old enough to know better. What they would decry in other circumstances they readily commit here. Is that so hard to understand?
“See these 16 videos as video blogs highly shared and viral. See these are what people come to the conference with preinderstading about.”
Professional movie reviewers don’t write reviews based on just watching movie trailers. They watch the whole movie, then they write the review.
Prudence and wisdom would have you doing the same.
“Then see the conference as a simple attempt justify their over the top and divisive stand.”
If lovingly warning and alerting others of harmful, aberrant doctrine is considered being over-the-top and divisive, then I suppose it’s a badge that the Strange Fire speakers will willingly wear.
“This is on par with what MacArthir has done for years.
See response directly above.
“Just because we may agree with the individual arguments give us no right to misrepresent so many.”
With regards to “misrepresent so many”, recall my earlier comment: “A good number of former Pentecostal/charismatic/continuationists support the arguments set forth by the Strange Fire speakers. These are credible insiders.”
They willingly attest that the Strange Fire speakers are not misrepresenting what’s frequently being done in charismatic churches.
You wrote this: “Actually converts are sometimes the least balanced. I wrote on this a LONG time ago. http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2008/06/convert-tainted-glasses/“
Apostle Paul was a convert. I suppose one could call him least balanced.
Suppose a former prostitute is ardent in denouncing prostitution. Or a former abortionist is ardent in denouncing the practice of abortion. Or a sex trafficker is ardent in denouncing the practice of sex slavery and trafficking.
Are we to dismiss them because they’re a “convert” and shallowly say that they’re “least balanced” in their ardent testimonies?
Wasn’t John Newton a captain of a slave ship? He ardently denounced the practice of slavery. Was he least balanced?
I’m listening to Phil Johnson now. He addressed the accusation that MacArthur throws out the baby with the bath water. He said that the reformed Charismatics are the small fringe of the movement, pointing to the vast viewership of the TBN chars tics worldwide..spawning false doctrine.
He also talked about internet conversation this week regarding MacArthur and this topic.
Johnson is naming a lot of names of those who have been the most notorious in the Charismatic Movement.
Now he’s talking about the Pyromaniac Todd Bently (Lakeland) post they did a few years ago… Cautioning about how to evaluate a teacher. He tells of the backlash. He’s also touching on the “Jesus Culture”