MacArthur has convinced me that he is not one to be taken seriously in regard to exposing false doctrine. While he is well above average in expositing Scripture, he is terrible at representing the real truth regarding those he attacks. He uses strawmen, he misrepresents views, he takes words and events out of context, etc.. And more than that, I'm wondering if he has had some terrible childhood experience because his attacks are with a vengeance that I don't typically encounter.
Anyway, Dan Kimball (who I do not know nor defend) makes an early stab at a defense. If I knew Dan I'd tell him to save his energy, save a direct intervention by the Holy Spirit, MacArthur isn't about to change. I wonder why so many accept his suppositions.
Technorati Tags: Emerging Church
6 comments:
well, a lot of people do read MacArthur so its worth a decent response . . i think . .anyway
hey - Andrew, if you are TallSkinnyKiwi, I agree, in fact, I was going to be the first to comment to my blog by adding a link to your more in-depth and more optimistic response.
http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/2006/12/the_truth_war_j.html
I encourage everyone to read your post.
Hi Rick, I understand that when you say "He uses strawmen, he misrepresents views, he takes words and events out of context, etc.. " you certainly have in mind that can of Coke that MacArthur mentions when he talks about J. Wimber (say Hi to your dog :-)) in his famous "Charismatic Chaos" book.
But Rick, I actually think we should give him lots of credit for what he does for God's people. I think John MacArthur is very good in confronting false teaching in our modern culture. Think of his book "The Gospel according to Jesus" (the term lordship salvation became famous because of this book), or think of his book "Vanishing conscience". He exposes Catholic movement and does it very well and convincing. I have watched him being interviewed on CNN and I also read many transcripts of his Larry King Live. He was very direct and authoritative in his every word (while other prominent evangelicals sitting with him on the panel, e.g. Max Lucado, tried to be soft and "loving" not hurting someone's feeling). I am glad we have men like him. Generations of young Christians influenced by his sermons (including you) in most cases grow up filled with passion for the truth. Having the same zeal as he does.
You might disagree with him on Charismatic points, but I think you are going too far by saying that he can not be taken seriously in regard to exposing false doctrine. I think his books and teaching should be definitely recommended (although with lots of discernment as you would apply towards anyone else, including J. Wimber)
Amen - I've learned a lot from MacArthur. I could have learned more had he kept his focus on his strength promoting the Scripture. While he may have done some good work exposing error, he also did some bad work. Regardless, his strength and I believe our higher calling, is promoting truth rather than exposing error.
Rick,
BTW, the post by "anonymous" is not me, but it sounds like something I would write. I think you and Kimball are doing just what you accuse Mac of doing--using little pieces of data and extrapolating it to something much bigger. Wait a minute...you're making me do the same thing!
Randy (no blog)
no blog - yes in the sense of we do not know what his book will actually say. No in the sense that Mac is clear on his position toward Charismatics, Emergents, etc..
I'm not saying "God told me" but if I were a betting man, he will make sweeping generalization, he will say EC's believe X and most of them do not, and he will argue against what can happen if Y is taken to the extreme which the EC's will agree with. And in the end he will have convinced a lot of people about the horrors of EC without really representing the EC position.
At least that is his pattern.
Post a Comment