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"
TUAD, either your reading comprehension skills are severely lacking or you are purposefully misrepresenting Michael. He stated that converts are ***SOMETIMES*** the least balanced — the stunningly clear implication being that someone being a convert out of XYZ doesn’t automatically make them a reliable analyst of XYZ (as you seem to imply). In response to his “SOMETIMES”, your argument is to pick out two specific people and a handful of hypotheticals to “refute” him. “Sometimes” means “not all the time”, so you can stack up as many examples as you want and it has no relevance to the issue.
Let me give you a concrete example of an unbalanced convert. I have encountered several men who, before they were saved, were into wild sex and copious amounts of drugs while playing in a rock band. After conversion, they (rightly) gave up the drugs and fornication. But they lump **everything** from their BC life into one pot. And so (when it comes to music) they make Bill Gothard look like Lars Ulrich, condemning everything with a “beat”. According to them, even Reformed darlings like Townend and Getty are influenced by Satan and likely going to hell, taking us all with them. Does that seem balanced to you?
It should be noted that nowhere did Michael say or imply that anyone should be dismissed. He merely implied that not everyone who is a “convert” should be automatically accepted. Please stop putting words in his mouth, especially when they’re 180 degrees from what he said.
I must admit that you amused me when you said that it was shallow to call someone “least balanced” when you’re the only one who used that phrase or anything like it.
On this very thread there are a number of former charismatics attesting to the abuses and excesses that they’ve witnessed and observed in charismatic/continuationist churches.
Unless shown otherwise, let’s regard them as credible insiders.
Also, on other blog threads there are many ex-charismatic continuationists who are coming forth to validate and affirm the Strange Fire speakers’ truth-claims about the abuses and excesses in charismatic churches.
They are grateful that John MacArthur and the other Strange Fire speakers are prayerfully and lovingly addressing this important issue.
@CPS: “Would such examples really give us adequate warrant for denying penal substitution ourselves?”
Errm, bad example CPS, since penal substitution is one of those things that it is questionable if the historic church up to 1000 AD taught. So…. yeah, perhaps if found holy people who didn’t accept it, and reputable scholars don’t accept it, we should revisit that doctrine.
http://www.antiochian.org/node/25462
TAUD,
I have to say that Brendt nailed it. You have to understand how hard it is to respond when people don’t listen. Whether not not you mistakes are slips or just the emotion getting the best of you, it is easy to lose your voice. And, ironically, this is what this post is all about.
I am a Charismatic. I believe that all the gifts of the Spirit continue into today because Scripture says that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
One of the over riding issues I believe is behind the Mac / Johnson rant against Charismatics is that for the most part they do not hold to a ” Calvinistic Reformed” position.
Simply put, in their framework of understanding, they don’t accept that any other doctrinal position, apart from the one they hold is Biblical.
Now I see and agree that there are many excesses within the Charismatic / Pentecostal camp. I also see many excesses within the NON Charismatic / Pentecostal camps.
I myself am living proof that the gifts of the Spirit still operate today. I was delivered of demons. I had a number of them cast from me in 1997, instantly freeing me from a masturbation and gambling addiction.
I have prayed for people and seen them healed. At the same time I have prayed for others and heard God say no, not this time.
I worked on a farm and distinctly heard God say to me.. Craig, be careful, there is a snake in the dairy shed..( in 18 years of working there, I have never seen a snake in that shed) When I arrived at work, there was the snake exactly where I was told it would be…and if I wasn’t warned about it, I would have been bitten by it.
I can’t tell you the number of times the Lord used me to prophesy encouragement to others as well as they to me.
I also have had a number of God given visions over the years, many which were to be used to give me great comfort and encouragement in times of great great hardship and stress.
Yeup… I thank God every day that he is the same God yesterday, today and tomorrow.
I am one of those former charismatics. I DO NOT agree with JM’s approach though and I am NOT thankful for his polemic approach.
Who’s approach at discipline worked best when a well known pastor misrepresented the Song of Solomon?
Was it JMac saying this guy is unfit for ministry and needed to step down? Or was it the fatherly, wise and loving Jhn 13:35 approach of JPiper?? Well the pastor listened to Piper.
Well telling a bunch of people they are hell bound heretics will get you no where.
He is nasty and abuses his knowledge.
I could compare approaches like a meal, one fills and edifies with good things, the other leaves you feeling sick and leaves a bitter taste never to go back.
TUAD,
There are no doubt many, many continuationist movements, churches and leaders who are heretics. There are no doubt many, many examples of people who have suffered great harm as a result of these heretical teachings. There are also many continuationist movements that are edifying to the church, have proper teachings, and heal many souls.
Your appeal to anecdotal evidence and individual stories in a form of fallacious reasoning. I can find anecdotal evidence of sugar pills curing cancer. Unless your criticism is much more precise then simply “continuationists” you are blaspheming fellow believers who do preach what is right and still fall under the continuationist umbrella. Unless MacArthur, yourself, and others like you are willing to lump Piper, Chandler, Storms, Driscoll, etc. in with Osteen, Hinn, and WoF, you must stop these attacks. Otherwise they are slanderous and blasphemous – something by which you condemn yourself.
To wit – if MacArthur had done this conference on the evils of WoF, Osteen, or simply the Prosperity Gospel hardly one person on here would have an issue. It is lumping god-fearing, Gospel preaching preachers in with snake-oil salesmen that is indefensible.
Michael, which is more important– to use, loud bold strokes to warn people about the clearly false and harmful teaching characteristic of most of this movement, or to protect the reputation of the handful of charismatics that don’t teach all the nonsense?
When I turn on Christian TV there is tons of this terrible false teaching, one show after another. Is it really the media’s fault that this false teaching proliferates? Is it not the responsibility of the false teachers themselves and those who listen to it without correcting it? As for characterizing most (90%?) reformed people as “SOBs”to make your argument, this is quite simply silly. For someone eager that charismatics not be lumped together as all bad, it’s quite a statement to make, lumping most reformed people together, especially since you consider yourself reformed. Do I now know what you really think of yourself, or are you in the other 10%? 😉 Anyway, this is crass and beneath you– your ministry is better than statements like this.
Alex, if I may re-phrase your question (without changing its actual meaning one iota):
Which is more important — to bear false witness regarding one party to warn about another party OR to actually point out the truth (which isn’t really *that* nuanced)?
So many people (yourself included) keep referring to the “fringe” or “handful” of charismatics who are theologically sound and therefore need no admonition, nor do others need to be warned about them. I find two things odd about this:
1. This allegation is in no way proveable and is most likely simply a perception based on the fact that the extremes get all of the attention and air-time. Or are you prepared to say that the majority of Christians are just like Pat Robertson, Joel Osteen, and Fred Phelps?
2. More importantly, though, at this stage of the game, that fact is irrelevant because MacARTHUR REFUSES TO EVEN ACKNOWLEDGE THIS DISTINCTION. So why even bother alluding to it?
Oh, and to be honest, I think Michael was low-balling his estimation. 🙂
“…which is more important– to use, loud bold strokes to warn people about the clearly false and harmful teaching characteristic of most of this movement, or to protect the reputation of the handful of charismatics that don’t teach all the nonsense? ”
Neither.
The most important is to be fair, just, humble, meek and loving. Separate the wheat from the chaff, not lumping them all in together. To try to be knowledgeable enough to discern what is correct from incorrect and by the fruit of the spirit live your life that others may follow.
Teach those who misunderstand complex issues in your love and by your example, that is the most important.
As for JMac I have a quote from Chuck Swindoll
“A leader who forgets that he or she is first a model short-circuits their influence upon others. You are being watched.”
Jordan,
It is amazingly simple to do both. Just created, advertise, and critique the principles that are the most abusive. Making against the Heath-wealth gospel. That would cover 90% of the anise and then you could mention the other issue with such a title. Or, even easier, call it “radical charismaticism”. Every time you talk about it qualify it by this one adjective. One little element of grammar would cover so much.
We have so many precedents. Don’t have a conference against Calvinists, but hyper-Calvinists. Don’t have a conference against Complementarians but patriarchalism. And then invite balanced Complementarians or Calvinists.
Again, do we really want to have an effect and be honest or do we want to misrepresent, be less effective, and throw good people under the bus?
I’ve been watching the STRaNGe FiRe conference via Live Stream and it takes me back to the 1970’s when my Baptist and Catholic friends warned me sternly about “holy rollers”, “tongue talkers” all being of the Devil. The conference had an exclamation of applauses similar to the President getting a standing “O” for each sentence uttered. During the Q and A this afternoon Johnny Mac was asked about the dancing before the Lord by David and how that was any different to what is going on in Charismatic circles. He said that David danced in celebration of the truth with all his being including his body. Amazingly that is the same answer that charismatics say when they explain why they dance. I didn’t know whether he was defending David or the Charismatics with his answers but it did amuse me nonetheless when the audience blindly applauded for who said it and not the content of what was said. These people are closer to my age now but they still look like the same folks during the 70’s that wagged their bony finger at me then.
And , in addition to this, there is a massive failure to recognize how influential and growing this “fourth wave” of theologically astute and balanced charismatics is, esp among Calvinists. All one has to do is look at the Acts 29 Network and see that they are having and impact and can do so much more to balance out the movement.
In my experience, as of late, it is the cool thing to be a charismatic Calvinist. Credit Piper, Chandler, Driscoll, and Sam Storms for this. And, like it or not, each one of these men are far more popular than MacArthur these days, especially among the younger generation. How can one ignore such a growing movement within evangelicalism. More than that, since each one of these pastors is against the abuses in charismaticism, why not recognize their influence and use them?
CMP: “There are no doubt many, many continuationist movements, churches and leaders who are heretics. There are no doubt many, many examples of people who have suffered great harm as a result of these heretical teachings.”
No doubt.
“Your appeal to anecdotal evidence and individual stories in a form of fallacious reasoning.”
Craig Bennett, #158, your appeal to anecdotal evidence and individual stories is a form of fallacious reasoning.
“Unless your criticism is much more precise then simply “continuationists” you are blaspheming fellow believers who do preach what is right and still fall under the continuationist umbrella. Unless MacArthur, yourself, and others like you are willing to lump Piper, Chandler, Storms, Driscoll, etc. in with Osteen, Hinn, and WoF, you must stop these attacks.”
Please see Susan’s comment: “I’m listening to Phil Johnson now. He addressed the accusation that MacArthur throws out the baby with the bath water.”
“But since the baby-in-the-bathwater cliché is one of the Charismatics’ most common replies to their critics, I want to address it.”
“The Reformed Charismatics are a small fringe at the outer edge of the larger movement. They are a negligible minority in terms of both numbers and influence. And the guys you see on TV with poofy hairdos and shiny suits are the true charismatic mainstream.”
“Sometimes the people you hope would be a voice of sanity actually join the aberrant movements and become part of them. Sam Storms lent his considerable credibility to the Kansas City Prophets for years, even after it was perfectly clear that they were false prophets.”
“Furthermore, despite my criticisms and my frustration with their passivity, I do have warm affection and heartfelt respect for men like John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Sam Storms.”
Accept the nuance.
TUAD, thanks for the specifics regarding the dismissive and derisive comments that Phil Johnson made about men for whom he allegedly has “warm affection and heartfelt respect”. With friends like PJ ….
I’m assuming that we’re just supposed to take the unprovable allegations of “fringe” and “negligible minority” as gospel because Johnson said it?
I keep on reading posts from people who say they grew up in the Charismatic movement, and they’re so glad God set them free from it. There’s also people who grew up in the reformed church who are glad God set them free from that legalism.
The truth is, any time we leave an extreme church (whether it’s reformed or charismatic), we are set free. The Charismatics don’t own extremism and neither to the reformed believers. There is a healthy “in-between” that Christians can agree on. I, personally, am a believer who is charismatic but I go to a very reformed(John MacArthur-respecting) church.
It would be nice if MacArthur took the time to attend some of the more main-line charismatic churches (Bethel would be a great place to start), put some effort into trying to get to know the people, and listened to their music. I think, at their foundation, he’d find a group of people who, despite a few wackos here and there, love the gospel and carry their passion for it wherever they go.
When it comes down to it, it seems like MacArthur would have every Christian believe the exact same doctrines that he believes and live out their faith the exact same way he does. This is not a healthy way to view the body of Christ.
A lot more dialogue and discussion needs to take place between different denominations rather than each one pointing fingers at each other. If loving Jesus is really our main priority, then we’ll find that we Christians have a lot in common.
Maybe it’s just me, but if I was actually interested in resolving the issue (rather than simply pointing it out), and a clarification could turn a lot more hearts my way (or at least make a lot more folks inclined to listen to me), said clarification would be the *very first thing* that I addressed — if I hadn’t addressed it already well before the conference. It would not be something that could wait until the second day and be relegated to one of my employees.
Perhaps TUAD’s “Accept the nuance” would be better addressed to MacArthur.
I was born 70 years ago into the Foursquare Church. My grandfather was at Azusa Street. When I was young, I was taught by mainline preachers to “prime the pump” for tongues by saying “ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba” or “Jesus-Jesus-Jesus-Jesus” as fast as possible until “God takes over your tongue.” I was taught that any time a person (usually a woman) interrupted a service with shouting, it was a holy moment. I listened to O.L. Jaggers (who taught that he would live forever) and A.A. Allen (the alcoholic). I joined with the nine and ten year olds that sobbed their eyes out trying to learn to babble. I saw Marvin Gorman and Jimmy Swaggart fall. I saw the president of the Foursqure denomination wreak havoc with a Ponzi scheme. I’ve watched Todd Bentley, Bill Johnson and the woman with the bobble head. I’ve seen one of our local pastors claim to have his teeth filled by God…. and through it all, I’ve not hear any one of them denounced by our leaders. When Todd B. was at his prime, Jack Hayford said this: “…it has not been the practice of The Foursquare Church to draw conclusions hastily in such situations.” You know… the old non-scriptural “test of time.” I think one of JM’s messages is to Pentecostal/Charismatic leaders to step up and call truth truth and heresy heresy.
What, no mention of Sproul, Lawson, MBewe, justin Peters, Todd Friel? They are speaking to. Have they lost their voice too?
[…] Also earlier in the week, C. Michael Patton at Parchment and Pen says that with the advance materials promoting the conference, MacArthur “acted very irresponsibly and is doing incredible damage to the body of Christ.” Why John MacArthur May Be Losing His Voice […]
Michael
Depends on how tightly they cling to JMacs coat tails! lol
Truth Unites..
Normally I don’t respond to anonymous comments.. but to say my testimony is fallacious is rather annoying – when you know nothing about me and my testimony….is strange to the very least…
[English isn’t my native language, sorry]
To be honest, I don’t even understand why people like Piper or Chandler are being lumped in with the “Charismatics” just because they are not cessationists. In practical terms they have nothing in common with 99% of charismatics. They aren’t even a marginal fringe, they are something else entirely. They just have a common stance on a particular theoretical-doctrinal point, nothing more.
And people in the US/UK need to realize that continuationists like Piper or Grudem have zero influence outside of the English-speaking world. That “intellectual fringe” simply doesn’t exist in most countries of the planet (even in developed countries like France, etc). If you think that they somehow represent a “4th wave”, you are quite mistaken.
What JM says apply to 99.99% of the charismatics on the planet so I really don’t see why his critique is perceived as “unfair”…
Jonathan,
Your statement about Grudem and Piper leads me to the questions, ‘zero influence? really?’ I doubt that and in any case ‘How influential is JMac out side of the English speaking world?’
Maybe he is a little, but since the context here is the english speaking world, why bother talking about the rest of the world?
Not sure if I am happy about it or not, but clearly we have been forced to revisit the subject.
I began as a person who was completely opposed to the “Charismatic” movement’s behavior and theology. I remain completely opposed to most of the “Charismatic” movements behavior and theology, (especially the “charismatic” part 🙂 )
But I did begin to warm up to them as brothers and sisters in Christ because of my interaction with them. I still was grieved in my spirit when I heard them “speak in tongues” at prayer meetings, hated when they would hound me to attend the next prophecy conference, treat me like I didn’t know my Bible and so on. But I do like, love, many of them as my brothers and sisters in Christ.
A few years ago our church began “The Theology Program”. And it was there that I first came across the “open but cautious” position. Seemed like the right position to take. Not because my theology on the subject changed. I still see the cessationist position as the most Biblical. But it seemed to be the most respectful position I could take, especially because I had so many people I considered brothers and sisters in Christ, who were “Charismatic”. And of course, “God can do whatever He wants.”
But…, (Like you didn’t know that was coming. 🙂 ) 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.”, “These are nice people who I agree with everywhere else.”, “These are nice people with Doctorates and Ph.d’s.”
I am mostly interested in CMP thoughts. I have taken most of The Theology Programs courses, read most of your blogs, and listened to many podcast, (I am re-listening to “Why I Am Not A…
Jonathan,
The critics of Strange Fire are also wondering why men like Piper or Grudem are being lumped in by MacArthur. Meanwhile, his defenders/apologists are claiming that they aren’t, despite multiple and specific statements made by him that demonstrate that he is. So your confusion is not due to a language barrier, but a logic barrier.
Before you go throwing around phrases like “zero influence outside of the English-speaking world”, it might be wise to take into consideration the fact that Piper’s online (free) ebooks are translated into 25 languages, then consider that this is hardly the only non-English resource available.
Lastly, your “99%” and “99.99%” are completely unprovable (just like Phil Johnson’s “fringe” and “negligible minority” pot shots from yesterday) and thus aren’t really worthy of being part of a serious discussion.
Brendt W. Waters: “I’m assuming that we’re just supposed to take the unprovable allegations of “fringe” and “negligible minority” as gospel because [Pastor Phil] Johnson said it?”
You could take up Frank Turk’s offer to discuss the matter in #30, if you’re serious.
He wrote: “(1) A quantitative discussion of the ratio of “good charismatics” vs. “red-headed step children”.
“Maybe it’s just me, but if I was actually interested in resolving the issue (rather than simply pointing it out), and a clarification could turn a lot more hearts my way (or at least make a lot more folks inclined to listen to me), said clarification would be the *very first thing* that I addressed — if I hadn’t addressed it already well before the conference. It would not be something that could wait until the second day and be relegated to one of my employees.”
Although it wasn’t done how you would have personally done it, thanks for your tacit acknowledgment that qualified nuance was provided at the Strange Fire Conference.
“Perhaps TUAD’s “Accept the nuance” would be better addressed to MacArthur.”
He did. See Pastor Mike Riccardi’s well-liked comment in #35.
He wrote: “the entire final chapter of the book, “An Open Letter to My Continuationist Friends,” demonstrates that MacArthur understands the nuances in the Charismatic movement, and that not every individual is as culpable as every other.”
Ralph,
I’m not CMP (for which I’m sure he’s grateful), but I can easily give you a reason, simply by altering one of your “not this” sentences: “These are nice people who love the Lord.”
Let’s start by dropping the word “nice”, because there are many who (for some reason) look derisively on being nice. So now we have:
“These are people who love the Lord.”
Next alteration is …..
Oh. Wait. I’m done.
My point being that you can’t truly love the Lord and do the things that MacArthur is accusing many people of doing. So for those for whom his accusations are wrong (and they aren’t just a “fringe” or “negligible minority”), the revised statement — “These are people who love the Lord” — is really all the reason that you need.
Jesus plus anything ruins everything.
Your words sound very naive coming to those of us who have been in the charismatic church and have been brought out of it by the Lord. 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. You shouldn’t base someone’s salvation on how spiritual they ‘seem’ to be, as in the case of your charismatic friend. Buddhists seem to be kinder, more peaceful, more spiritual and grounded in their religion than I often do in mine but are they on the fast track to God’s kingdom (without Christ)? The gospel IS offensive. Truth IS offensive when it steps on our pride. 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.
If I may add one more comment, I would recommend everyone who is foggy on this topic read a book called The Beautiful Side of Evil by Johanna Michaelson. She does have some interviews on youtube but you must read her book to understand her unique perspective on spiritual counterfeits even within christian churches. What better tool of Satan is there than to infiltrate the church on this scale? Please just step away from both the MacArthur Camp or the Piper Camp- wherever your loyalty lies- and begin to pray to God for HIS truth to be imparted to you. “James 1:5- If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.”
@Brendt Wayne Waters
So what? I’m well aware that books are translated but it simply demonstrates a willingness to preach to the world, nothing more. It certainly doesn’t disprove my point. Just visit random evangelical churches in europe or Africa and talk to people, you’ll see that I’m not exaggerating anything, he is a complete unknown to the vast majority of non-anglophones, just like the entire TGC crowd. Trust me, I wish he had more influence.
Regarding the 99%: how would you know anyway? You live in the US and know only of the US evangelical world, which only represent a portion of the ~500 millions evangelicals. On the global scale, I don’t think that the 99% figure is far-fetched at all unfortunately.
Anyway, I’ve listened to JM lately and haven’t heard him “lumping in” Piper and the rest, I didn’t even hear him mentioning them, but maybe I missed something? Do you have some sources?
If im not mistaking, on a few of MacArthurs strange fire videos, he said that not all charismatics are bad or lost, that there are some charismatics that are following Christ with a sincere heart (just paraphrasing not quoting). But I do believe in a way he could be a little too harsh when it comes to talking about the charismatics. Ive been a charismatic for over 20 years (even though in 23 years old lol) and im just now seeing that a lot of the things that we do in the charismatic movement aren’t biblical and that we would focus more on our feelings than Gods word! I can say this, I have had some quite edifying experiences in the charismatic churches. Some that I will never forget! And I also know some charismatic preachers that have sound biblical theology. But at the same time, I have watched, seen a lot happen and noticed that most Christians in the charismatic movement are bible illiterate and can easily take the bible out of context. But anyways, with all this said, I believe that Pastor MacArthur could’ve been more gracious when it came to talking about this movement. But at the same time, IN MY OPINION, being apart of that movement for so long, it has led me astray and it needs to be addressed so it wont happen to other believers. BUT IN A MORE LOVING WAY! Love all of your responses though! God bless all of you! Grace and Peace!
TUAD:
You could take up Frank Turk’s offer to discuss the matter in #30, if you’re serious.
Oh, puhleeeeze. I am serious, so the last thing that I’ll do is take up Turk’s demand that the conversation be framed in his terms only with no interest in engaging the subject as it already was being discussed.
Although it wasn’t done how you would have personally done it, thanks for your tacit acknowledgment that qualified nuance was provided at the Strange Fire Conference
I said the “if it was me” part tongue-in-cheek — it would more accurately read “if it was anybody who actually cared”. The firestorm regarding over-generalization began long before the conference. The open-but-cautious crowd and the reformed charismatics were among the critics of his broad brush. MacArthur had already made it clear that a big part of the “problem” was the “error” of their ways. He alienated these two groups (1) who were very probably the most likely to listen to him, among those who had overall disagreement and — by his own admission — (2) who were key to correcting the problem. And then he did *nothing* to clarify to them the nuances of what he really (allegedly) meant.
I refuse to believe that both he and his handlers live that far under a rock that they weren’t aware of the situation, so the only other conclusion I can see is that he simply didn’t care that his words/actions had lost him a key demographic and that he’d simply be preaching to the choir. Had he taken just 5 minutes to clarify even a summary of the (alleged) nuance of his argument, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
(continued in next comment)
(part 2 – continued from previous comment)
And then MacArthur did *nothing* to clarify the nuances of what he really (allegedly) meant during his opening sermon at the conference or before/after any of the other speakers. No, the task of noting nuance fell to Johnson. A few things occur to me:
(1) Are you familiar with the phrase: “too little, too late”?
(2) The fact that MacArthur, himself, did not address the issue (during *his* conference on a problem that *he* created) shows his disinterest in the topic.
(3) Several clarifications/nuances were presented here and elsewhere (including the “clarifying note” by the much-ballyhoo’d Challies), many of which were shown to be wrong, not by someone’s opinion, but by MacArthur’s own words. It is likely that Johnson said what he said unsolicited. So, who’s to say that Johnson’s attempts at clarification weren’t also wrong? It is unlikely that MacArthur would publicly humiliate him by stating that he (Johnson) had over-stepped his bounds.
(4) And yes, I am (again) acknowledging that nuance was presented at the conference. But with all the caveats that I just noted. And not by the man who created the need for the clarification in the first place.
See Pastor Mike Riccardi’s well-liked comment in #35.
The fact that the comment is “well-liked” is beyond irrelevant. Your inclusion of that phrase, however, lends a lot of credence to david carlson’s allegation in #64.
“the entire final chapter of the book
Oh, you mean the as-yet-unpublished book that so many of CMP’s detractors said that he should have read before writing the OP, and to which you’re now appealing? That book?
(continued in next comment)
(part 3 – continued from previous comment)
“An Open Letter to My Continuationist Friends,” demonstrates that MacArthur understands the nuances in the Charismatic movement, and that not every individual is as culpable as every other.”
A couple thoughts generated by this (and I’m assuming that Riccardi’s summary/analysis is spot-on, i.e. that MacArthur would say “Yes, that’s what I meant”):
(1) So MacArthur *has* considered the fact that there is nuance to be delineated here — and so important is this issue, that he dedicated a whole chapter to it? This, more than anything else I’ve seen, is the most damning piece of evidence against the fact that he’s said nothing either before or during the conference about this issue.
(2) “not every individual is as culpable as every other” implies that *all* to whom this is addressed *are* culpable to some degree. This is merely a kind way of saying “you all stink, but some of you less than others”. But I guess you can’t say “you stink” in a chapter that has “Friends” in the title.
Jonathan, on the contrary, it (very nearly) does disprove your point. You stated that such men have “zero influence” in the non-English speaking world. If only one of those books was ever downloaded and read (which I’d guess is a 99.9999999% certainty or they would’ve stopped bothering well before they reached 25 languages), then your contention is completely wrong.
The initial references to “fringe” and “negligible minority” were made based on observations limited to the knowledge of the person claiming such things. Such observations are statistically irrelevant and unprovable, and therefore one cannot claim percentages based on them. Your appeal to anecdotal evidence is even more invalid as any kind of measure.
As to you not hearing the lumping: no, J-Mac has not specifically said the name, “John Piper”. But when you make sweeping statements that say or imply the word “all” regarding a demographic of which Piper is a part, he’s inherently going to get caught in that net.
If Frank Turk wanted an honest discussion, it would be about what this post is about, not his attempt to hijack and distract the conversation.
This post is about JMac jumping the shark. But having any discussion about JMac is strictly verbotten at the flame boys. Nope, not going to happen. Everyone else can be flamed, but not JMac.
Now, I get that. TP is Phil Johnsons blog, and JMac is his boss. It makes good sense to just have a zero tolerance policy on the topic.
But to throw down the gauntlet about what this post is not, well, that is disengenous
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.”
Admirable. And reasonable.
Brendt W. Walters: “Let’s start by dropping the word “nice”, because there are many who (for some reason) look derisively on being nice. So now we have:
“These are people who love the Lord.”
the revised statement — “These are people who love the Lord” — is really all the reason that you need.”
Ralph, Mormons are people who love the Lord. Does that mean you have to accept and approve their doctrine and the practices that flow from their doctrine?
Suggestion: Love the person, and if the person has aberrant doctrine, don’t accept and don’t approve the aberrant doctrine and aberrant practices that flow from that doctrine.
Jarring as it may seem to some, the Strange Fire Conference is the most loving thing that the organizers can do for those burned by the Strange Fire. Or for those tempted to be burned by the Strange Fire.
TUAD:
Ralph, Mormons are people who love the Lord.
I am assuming from the context that you meant to address that statement and its follow-ups to me, not Ralph.
But if you honestly believe that Mormons truly love the (actual) Lord and not some cosmic energy ball whose brother is Lucifer, then we are at far too great of a disconnect to have meaningful conversation on much finer points like MacArthur’s lack of nuance.
And if you don’t honestly believe that, then you are grossly misrepresenting me.
Brendt W. Walters: “I am assuming from the context that you meant to address that statement and its follow-ups to me, not Ralph.”
Sorry. Wrong assumption.
Main Points:
o Suggestion: Love the person, and if the person has aberrant doctrine, don’t accept and don’t approve the aberrant doctrine and aberrant practices that flow from that doctrine.
o Jarring as it may seem to some, the Strange Fire Conference is the most loving thing that the organizers can do for those burned by the Strange Fire. Or for those tempted to be burned by the Strange Fire.
TUAD, I find it utterly fascinating that when I point out something you said that borders on heresy (no matter who it was addressed to), that you gloss over it and simply repeat the other things you already said.
Move along, nothing to see here ….
John McArthur is simply doing what Paul and John did in combating the mystics and gnostics of their day. After seeing some of the absolute absurdity of some of the Charismatics
I believe he and spot on.
David Carlson: “If Frank Turk wanted an honest discussion, it would be about what this post is about, not his attempt to hijack and distract the conversation.”
I didn’t think he was trying to hijack and distract the conversation.
By the way, have you seen today’s post by Frank Turk: Here.
Excerpts:
“Let’s assume for a second (and this is a mightily-generous assumption) that all the US congregations of the AOG, the Apostolic Church, COG and COGIC, International Foursquare, and International Pentecostal Holiness are all wholly and fully inside what someone might call the “cautious Charismatic” camp. That is: let’s say they never have anything happening inside them that looks like barking like a dog, or prayer for healing that looks like a slap fight, or preaching which equates personal prosperity to the objective of the Gospel, and they never have a substantially-false prophecy which harms anyone. According to ARDA, a generous headcount there is 5 million people.
Globally, TBN reaches 100 million people. In Sub-Saharan Africa, there are over 500 million sociologically-Christian people (PEW research says 517 million)– and of that number, 15% self-select as “Pentecostal.” (source: ARDA) That’s 75 million Charismatic adherents who, frankly, are not as cautious as Dr. Brown are. My suggestion here is that it turns out that the cautious fellows have, for so long, merely sighed heavily when someone is exposed as a fraud that now they are in the tiny minority of people in their own theological camp.”
Do read the rest of Mr. Turk’s commentary.
To Micheal and all other critics: After you’ve preached through the ENTIRE NT over a 40 year period in the SAME church, mind you- THEN I MIGHT just give some validity to your critique.
Are yall seriously ignoring the elephant in the room. The Charismatic movement is FILLED with spiritual potholes that are severely damaging the body of Christ especially the African American community. What may be a “strange fire” in White America is an INFERNO in black America. I just heard a WOMAN on the radio this morning who described herself as an “Apostle”. I heard my Pastor stay this past Sunday that we should “Usher in” the Holy Spirit, and I belong to a Baptist church. Charismatic chaos is infectious. So if JM’s criticism of this bankrupt movement is “losing his voice” then may we all become horse for Jesus. The Charismatic movement has given justification for all manner of unbiblical practice in the local church. Have we become so enamored with tolerance that we have lost our voices (BUT FOR THE WRONG REASONS).
lol @tuad
Frank refused to addressed what this post was about, hijacking it for his own hobbyhorse. It is more funny because he is so against that at his own blog. Well, I expect nothing more.
Again, this post is about JMac jumping the shark. Period. CMP has dozens of posts and podcasts on the subject Frank wants to talk about, none of which Frank has demonstrated any interaction with.
Why should CMP, or anyone, dance to Franks tune when he has done nothing to interact with CMP on this topic? Honestly, thats just lazy to come to a blog, throw down a gaunlet when you refuse to deal with the ton of material allready there.
I just read Turks writing. The whole thing rests on a fundamental logical flaw. For the sake of argument lets assume that Frank’s numbers are right and something like 80% of those who hold to continuationism/charamaticism are off the deep end heretics (and his math is quite questionable on many fronts). And lets assume that the other 20% who do have right doctrine don’t really say anything about it (which they do – I’ve seen John Piper, among many others, harshly condemn the Prosperity Gospel). How does this give one the right to condemn the entirety?
Additionally it would seem that the reason that Turk gave for not condemning Luther (namely that he is a Baptist, so by definition he disagrees with Luther on most things) applies equally to those in the charismatic camp. Why don’t you see me constantly condemning Oneness Pentacostals?? While very simply I’m not a Oneness Pentacostal and the denomination I am a part of by definition disagrees with Oneness Pentacostals.
The kicker for me was this bit.
“If the faults of Martin Luther raise this question to anyone not Roman Catholic, how can the sewer pipe of faults pouring out literally everywhere even today not require a response which does for it what Lutherans have done for Luther for 5 centuries”
What makes this amusing was that person he was responding to was asking about Luther to make the point that not all Protestants are required to answer for Luther’s bad beliefs. The fact that Turk appears to take it seriously is hilarious. I literally laughed. Ultimately the exact same reasons that Turk gave for not having to answer for Luther’s wrongs are equally applicable to many in the Charismatic movement. This guy is a tool!!!
David Carlson,
I believe that Frank Turk was attempting to add to the thread conversation, not hijack it.
But that being said, you are quite right when you wrote: “It is more funny because he is so against that at his own blog.”
Michael T., was this the part of Frank Turk’s essay that you were laughing at:
“The problems with Martin Luther’s racism and politically-partisan polemics are well-known, and have been well-dealt with by those who follow his teaching. Because the same can’t be said about the Charismatic movement, and in fact often those who see themselves as apologists for this movement look the other way when the movement is promoting men who are simply frauds and con men, the question of what other should do about Martin Luther is, at best, a distraction from the wolf at the door.”
It is not surprising to me that Frank Turk would write something to try to minimize that percentage/number of people against whom MacArthur is bearing false witness, as though any number higher than zero is an acceptable level. But, let’s look at the statistics that he cites, shall we?
Globally, TBN reaches 100 million people.
BET reaches 91 million people, including me (until just recently when I dumped my cable). But get me on a dance floor, and even Helen Keller will know that I’m the whitest man alive. I can only assume that since Turk never again references this 100 million figure, nor uses it in his calculations, that he recognizes the stunning irrelevance of the figure, and was only using it as a shiny object with shock value.
In Sub-Saharan Africa, there are over 500 million sociologically-Christian people (PEW research says 517 million)– and of that number, 15% self-select as “Pentecostal.” (source: ARDA)
The choices among which these people “self-selected” were finite. In the field of statistics, this is known as a discrete variable. No religion (possibly least of all, Christianity) can be defined/measured with any reasonable accuracy with discrete variables (apologies to our friends at PEW). Case in point, my father:
* His beliefs most closely align with the PCA.
* But he believes that paedobaptism is wrong.
* He is a member of a Baptist church and has held many official and unofficial leadership roles in that church.
* He also confesses to having more than a few drops of Pentecostal blood in his veins.
* But he doesn’t believe in any manifestation of tongues, not even as a private prayer language.
So which box does he check?
See, discrete variables don’t cut it.
(continued in next comment)
(continued from previous comment)
Oh, and reliance on such polls also assumes that the “self-selectors” know what the heck they’re talking about. I note that Turk (rightly) used the term “sociologically-Christian”. A lot of sociological Christians haven’t put their faith in Jesus Christ and therefore (by what I would imagine would be a definition accepted by the large majority here) are not actually Christians. And yet, they’ll check the “Christian” box on that form, simply because they aren’t Jewish, Muslim, or Bill Maher.
That’s 75 million Charismatic adherents who, frankly, are not as cautious as Dr. Brown are.
But (to borrow from Frank), “[l]et’s assume for a second (and this is a mightily-generous assumption)” that every last one of those 75 million people is, indeed, Pentecostal.
For 10 years, I was a Calvinist member of a church (nay, a denomination) that leans heavily Arminian. And you’re going to tell me my belief system based on a checkbox?
EVERYBODY STOP! WAIT! I’VE FIGURED IT OUT.
MacArthur’s acknowledgement of the need for nuance is reportedly given (solely, thus far) in the last chapter of his as-yet-unpublished book. Spoilers are generally regarding the end of a book or movie. I bet Harper Collins has told MacArthur not to spoil the book, and that’s why he refuses to acknowledge anything related to nuance now.
We’ve been punk’d. Good one, John.
Hopefully, HC won’t take legal action against him for breach of contract simply because one of his employees let the cat out of the bag.