John MacArthur: The Evil Empire Only Needs a Little Tweaking
It needs to be stated again, and again: the Emergent Church approaches Scripture the same way that New Calvinism does—as a narrative that devalues propositional truth. One searches the narrative for “pictures of Jesus” for contemplative purposes while the other seeks to emphasize what Jesus has done in the narrative, and endeavors to “enter into the gospel story” by doing what Jesus did. At least the latter has some application to their mysticism as opposed to New Calvinist contemplative spirituality. MacArthur is the pot calling the kettle black.
John MacArthur, apparently equipped with a new motto: “Looking at the face of Jesus one verse at a time,” has some advice for the youth division of the New Calvinist movement (the Young, Restless, Reformed [YRR]). The advice, which is being doled out in a three-part series, is entitled, “Grow up. Settle Down. Keep Reforming.” The whole notion reveals how out-of-touch MacArthur has become—save the fact that the timing of this is good because he knows they have cut ties with him.
First, how can they take such advice when it would mean changing their name? This is a marketing machine, and you don’t mess with name recognition—that’s marketing 101.
Second, “keep reforming”?!! What are they reforming? The movement is wreaking havoc from coast to coast—splitting families, splitting churches, breaking hearts, spreading false doctrine, and leaving the disillusioned strewn across the Christian landscape.
Third, the very coldhearted arrogance of the movement can be seen in what MacArthur states in his article, and in a related article by Tim Challies. MacArthur cites this paragraph in his second article that obviously is fruit from a very bad tree:
Pastors must be innovative, stylish, agents of change. You have got to appeal to young people. They are the only demographic that really matters if the goal is to impact the culture.
And if elderly people in the church prove to be “resisters,” just show them the door. Give them the left foot of fellowship. After all, “There are moments when you’ve got to play hardball.”
But for heaven’s sake don’t dress for hardball. HCo. clothes and hipster hair are essential tools of contextualization. The more casual, the better. Distressed, grunge-patterned T-shirts and ripped jeans are perfect. You would not want anyone to think you take worship as seriously as, say, a wedding or a court appearance. Be cool. Which means (of course) that you mustn’t be perceived as punctilious about matters of doctrine or hermeneutics. But whatever you do, do not fail to pay careful attention to Abercrombie & Fitch.
After some research, I ascertained that this is Mac’s take on an attitude prevalent in the movement—an attitude that he chalks up to the supposed unfortunate influence of the Emergent church movement among the innocent souls of YRR. In his first part, he says this:
“Five years later, the so-called Emergent Church is now in a state of serious disarray and decline. Some have suggested it’s totally dead. Virtually every offshoot of evangelicalism that consciously embraced postmodern values has either fizzled out or openly moved toward liberalism, universalism, and Socinianism. Scores of people who were active in the Emerging movement a decade ago seem to have abandoned Christianity altogether.”
It needs to be stated again, and again: the Emergent Church approaches Scripture the same way that New Calvinism does—as a narrative that devalues propositional truth. One searches the narrative for “pictures of Jesus” for contemplative purposes while the other seeks to emphasize what Jesus has done in the narrative, and endeavors to “enter into the gospel narrative” by doing what Jesus did. At least the latter has some application to their mysticism as opposed to New Calvinist contemplative spirituality. MacArthur is the pot calling the kettle black.
Furthermore, postmodernism isn’t going anywhere, it is being integrated into New Calvinism in the same way that Sonship Theology is. Proof? No problem, just remember what grandma used to say: “Birds of the feather flock together.” Really, I am weary of Mac whining about who the YRR associate with. They associate together for a reason; namely, the antinomian ties that bind.
The arrogance of the movement can be further seen in the Challies post:
“In my travels and in many conversations with people like you [the YRR], I have come to realize that many people discount MacArthur as a man whose time has come and gone. ‘He has finished the New Testament; he fought the theological battles of the 1980’s and 1990’s, but it’s time for him to stop. He doesn’t get it anymore. He’s stuck in the past.’”
Then, Challies, who disagrees with MacArthur, but likes him, and disagrees with the above assessment, but then sort of says that Mac’s criticism of Patrick and Driscoll (who he likes but sometimes disagrees with) confirms what he thinks their kind of wrong about above, and then quickly follows that by mentioning that his mother likes Mac a lot, and….good grief!
If only it were true that MacArthur was “stuck in the past.” Anymore, following him is like being a Cincinnati Bengals fan; you don’t know which team is going to show up—the contemplative spirituality ( Gospel Sanctification /Sonship) Mac, or the expository Mac? If he believes both are applicable, he hasn’t stated that. I suppose that would add a clarity that is out of vogue in our day. In the close to his first part, Mac says the following:
“It is a wonderful thing to come to grips with the doctrines of grace, and it is a liberating realization when we acknowledge the impotence of the human will. But embracing those truths is merely an initial step toward authentic reformation. We still have a lot of reforming to do.”
This statement contradicts the theme / mantra of the movement he has now embraced: “The gospel is not the first step of Christian truth, or the ABC’s, but rather the A-Z….It is not a room in a building, it’s the whole building….it’s a hub that holds together all of the spokes and rim….the same gospel that saves us also sanctifies us….” etc. The first part of the statement is the Sonship Mac: we still have an impotent will and are totally free because now we know we can’t do anything. The second part is the expository Mac: “we” build on the foundation of the first step of understanding. “We,” who have impotent wills, “have a lot of reforming to do.” Say Mac, that wouldn’t be in a list form would it?
Behold our new Mac. Total confusion.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Paul – I think you are blowing this one way out of proportion. I’ve read your criticisms of MacArthur and am not convinced. This was confirmed this afternoon as I was finishing up a 7 part series MacArthur did on the New Covenant, from 2 Corinthians 3. He closed with verse 18, which is the one about beholding, and talked about how important this passage is for sanctification, which is having our lives transformed into Christlikeness. (That is what the verse says, after all). I didn’t hear any of the contemplative stuff you are accusing him of. He preached this in 1994. Then, in August of 1994 he preached directly on this passage in a sermon called “Looking at the Face of Jesus.” He said this:
“The Apostle Paul found that not only to be a great truth theologically, but a life sustaining truth practically. And he learned that the only way to live your life in a troubled world is to maintain focus on Christ. In fact, in Hebrews chapter 12 we are reminded that if we are to be effective as believers, if we are to live the Christian life in a victorious way, if we are to run with endurance the race that is set before us, Hebrews 12:2 says we must fix our eyes on Jesus. It is a simple thing but that is the sum and substance of Christian living, it is a preoccupation with Jesus Christ. And we’ve said that obviously through the years because it is such a recurrent theme in Scripture. But here it comes to us in the context of a fresh, a fresh experience in the life of the beloved Apostle Paul. He has learned that if he is going to see God in the midst of all of the difficulties of life, he will see Him in the face of Jesus Christ who obviously is revealed to us in the Word of God.”
What in the world is wrong with that?
LikeLike
Brian,
1. “maintain focus on Christ.” What does that mean?
2. “preoccupation with Jesus Christ.” What does that mean?
3. “he will see Him in the face of Jesus Christ.” What does that mean?
“Teaching them to obey all that I have commanded.” That’s crystal clear. “Whoever hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like …” That’s also crystal clear. See my point?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul: John MacArthur directly refutes what you accuse him of in this sermon, from 1994:
“Now lest I be misunderstood, let me just share with you something that I want to express as a clarification this morning. This look into the face of Jesus is objective and not subjective. That is to say it is historical and not mystical. When we say that as a Christian you live your life looking into the face of Jesus Christ, we’re not saying that you need to find a vision somewhere or some kind of extra-terrestrial or super-human kind of experience, we’re not asking you to chase an intuition or a fancy or a fantasy or some kind of emotional high or some kind of ecstatic moment. When we talk about looking into the face of Jesus we’re talking about something objective, something historical.
You say, “What do you mean by that?” I mean this, that the glory of God is revealed in the face of Jesus and the face of Jesus is revealed in the Scripture. So a vision of the face of Jesus Christ is a look into Scripture…for therein is Christ revealed. Not only is the Lord Jesus Christ the theme of the New Testament but He is really the theme of the Old Testament starting in the book of Genesis and flowing through the whole of Scripture. The focus is on the Lord, the one who is coming, the one who comes, the one who has come. But most pointedly and most generously and most completely is the glory of God revealed in the face of Jesus Christ in the fullness of the New Testament.
And so, when we talk about looking at the glory of God revealed in Christ, we’re not calling for an ecstatic experience or something subjective. We’re talking about an objective look at Scripture so that in chapter 3 verse 18 when we behold as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, that mirror which reflects that glory is nothing more than the Bible itself. Christ is revealed to us through the Word.”
LikeLike
Brian,
“We’re talking about an objective look at Scripture so that in chapter 3 verse 18 when we behold as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, that mirror which reflects that glory is nothing more than the Bible itself. Christ is revealed to us through the Word.”
What’s the difference between that and what Robert Brinsmead taught? And, the mirrors of that day were polished metal! There are many problems with the New Calvinist approach to this text. Peter said the Bible is a “light in a dark place” NOT a nebulous reflection of Christ’s glory to be found in every verse of Scripture.
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Brian,
I am disturbed by MacArthur saying that: “face of Jesus” = Bible–is an “objective” concept as if I was born yesterday. That is clearly a subjective criteria, especially when every verse in the Bible supposedly reflects that.
LikeLike
I really appreciate some men “stuck in the past” before New Calvinism came along. Looking back, I feel they taught me a well rounded and precise Christian world veiw. It’s helped me through everyday life, at home, and at work. Below is a list of some key doctrines I was taught. Emphasis was placed on understanding the relationships between these doctrines.
Grace and Law
Faith and Duty
Love and Fear
God’s Sovereignty and Man’s responsibility
Now note how the New Calvinism “High Life” only contemplates the left side of the list. They’ve got half the truth, just enough to be dangerous. They probably don’t teach all these doctrines because they didn’t use a “to do list.”
That was a good observation above about the Emergent Church movement being similar to New Calvinism. I once listened to an Emergent Church pastor preaching on the Feeding of the 5000. His moral of the story was all, and only, about “Caring and Sharing!” The guy had half truth, just enough to be dangerous. He forgot his “to do list.”
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike
Bill,
Great observations. Also, I’m easy–somebody just show me where MacArthur teaches that we should look for Christ AND instruction in every verse and which one has the priority. Or Is it both? Should we look for Christ first, then instruction? Should we look for the IND/IMP? Where is his clarification? Where is the qualification when he tells us to seek Jesus’ face in every verse? What does that mean exactly? He describes WHAT IT ISN’T, BUT SO WHAT? What is the specific hermeneutic for doing that? Is it His face + what He says? Mac can tell me this statement is “objective” till he’s blue in the face–I’m not buying that. Without guardrails, such an approach to reading Scripture could end-up anywhere.
paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul,
good question, where is the clarification? Without clarification there is NO precise instruction. It’s all hype, pretending to be on the cutting edge of a new mystery of the Bible with mystical attractions! It’s the “New Dancing Thunderwands” of a higher life. It’s yet another similarity to the illusive Emergent Church. They are all hard to figure, hard to pin down. Who knows where it’s going to end up. When cornered, they would say – “Oh we don’t deny those things not mentioned, it’s just a matter of emphasis. Just looking at it from another angle.”
This stuff is such a fad. I think it has much to do with marketing and what people want to hear too. The easy believism, antinomianism, and overdone unconditional love of God is not the appropriate message for our day, but it’s what the audience wants to hear. Most of the Mega churches are unified on these subjects. Remember Charles Stanley and Rick Warren, huge followings.
I recall testimonials about Sonship at church. People claimed it helped them so much! They claimed it is so wonderful! “The truth of God’s grace and unconditional love.” “I’m a Son of God.” “Adopted!”
That be as it may, thank you for being a realist. Sounding the alarm. I like your statement better, it’s the truth:
“The movement is wreaking havoc from coast to coast—splitting families, splitting churches, breaking hearts, spreading false doctrine, and leaving the disillusioned strewn across the Christian landscape.”
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike