On Wednesday, school president John MacArthur welcomed seminary students to The Master’s Seminary. After he discussed the recent accreditation probation (more on that in this and future posts), he was asked about his recent blog posts about social justice. I have most of the audio of his answer and a transcript of all of it. In it, he goes beyond his recent blog posts to discuss why he believes a focus on social justice is a threat to the gospel. The transcript begins just below and a link to the audio follows the transcript.
Question:
I’ve been keeping up with your blog posts on Grace to You. You’ve been talking about social justice is an issue now. You said Wednesday you’re going to mention what the hindrances to the gospel were entitled with. Do you mind giving us a sneak peak today?John MacArthur:
Well, that wouldn’t be fair. I’m not going to say … I wrote that already, but … Let me just give it to you in simple form. Obviously, social justice, which means equity in social treatment, right? Social justice means equity in how you’re treated socially. It’s not legal justice. I mean, we believe that all people should have legal justice, justice under the law. That’s never going to happen, either. You got people in prison who didn’t do something they were sentenced to prison for. You’ve got a lot of people who’ve been treated wrongly, even under the law.But social justice means social equity, making sure everybody gets the social equity. That’s never going to happen in a fallen world, in the best of circumstances. But that is not the church’s concern. Let me tell you what the problem is. The mindset of social justice is that certain people are victims. You will notice what’s called intersectionality. There’s an overlapping victimization pattern coming now. You can see it all in bold relief at the recent Southern Baptist convention.
The LGBTQ people are abused, and abused people, their abused category. So they are victims of discrimination. Women are victims of discrimination. You even have Thabiti Anyabwile, my friend, writing an article apologizing to Beth Moore, for I don’t know what. For being part of the male conspiracy against women, because women have been collectively abused. They’re also victims.
Then you have the racial minority issue, where they have been also victims. When you bring those together, you come up with this new concept of intersectionality, so that it would play out like this. If you are a woman, you’re a part of a victim class. If you’re a black woman, you’re doubly part of the victim class. If you’re a homosexual or lesbian black woman, you are the most empowered human being in this culture. You have moral authority, because you’re in multiple victim classes. So that’s what’s going on.
You see, all those … You got homosexuals, women, men, racial issues, ethnic groups, all mingled together, and now the Southern Baptist convention is apologizing to all of the victims. This I think is a complete disaster for the gospel, because the gospel says you are not a victim. You are a perpetrator of sin and rebellion against God. If you recategorize all those people as victims, you cut them off at the start with the gospel.
Most of these people talking about social justice are concerned about it at the back end of the gospel. You know, are you really a believer if you don’t care about that? Well, of course we care about that. But when you turn people into victims … I talked about the higher rate of abortion among black women in New York City. 75 percent of babies are killed in the womb. I was just afraid, because that was not something that … That was not the biggest issue. That is a big issue. That is murder.
Fornication is sin. Adultery is sin. Homosexuality is sin. Stealing is sin. Lying is sin. Cheating is sin. But if I turn all these people into victims, I’ve cut them off from the essential necessity in the gospel, and that is full culpability for your own sin. So I’m asking these people all the time, why aren’t you preaching against sin, regardless of who they are? Men, women, homosexual identity people, or ethnic groups, whatever they are.
I was thinking about 2 Corinthians, 5:16. Paul says, “We no longer see any man in the flesh. We don’t even see Christ in the flesh.” I don’t see people in the flesh. I see them with the eyes of God. If I stop at their flesh, and get stuck, at that point, I have missed the whole point of the gospel. That what concerns me about the Martin Luther King elevation. The man denied the authority of scripture, denied the trinity, denied the deity of Jesus Christ, denied the gospel, and lived an immoral life. How does he become heroic? Only if you look at him in the flesh.
God doesn’t see him in the flesh. God sees him in his heart attitude toward Him. We went and … people who say they’re evangelicals get completely consumed with the flesh, and with what’s happening in the physical world, and then make those people feel like they’re all victims. This is no good service to them. Are there inequities? You bet. I wrote about them in that first blog. I’ve seen it.
Read the book, The Blood Land. Between Russia and Germany prior to World War II, as many as 15 million people were killed. None of them in a military uniform. None of them in a war. They were just massacred. 15 million people. That takes a lot of work to kill 15 million people, one at a time. Are there atrocities in the world? You bet. Stalin kills 50 million. Hitler kills 6 million Jews. 2,000 Nigerians are slaughtered in the last week.
This is a tough place to live. Sin has consequence. It has social consequence. It has deadly consequence. I’m not denying the curse of Adam. I’m not denying that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the third and fourth generation. This is a sinful generation right here. Sinful fathers in this generation are going to make life really difficult for the next three, four generations. But nobody ever went to hell for the sin of Adam. Nobody ever went to hell for the sins of the fathers. They go because they believe not in Christ, and because they haven’t confronted their own sin in an honest way.So all this talk is simply looking at people on a fleshly level, and that’s the wrong look. That’s why it’s not a gospel reality, because it stops the gospel dead in its tracks at the start. You are not a victim. You are a perpetrator of sin against God, and in all.
The Bible warns, and I’ll get into this Sunday morning, but if you’re a watchman, and you don’t warn, the blood of those people is on your hands. If these people have a message, the message ought to be forget the history, forget the past, forget what went wrong, forget a fallen world … You better deal with your sin. That’s gospel. Turning people into victims is not gospel.
That just confuses everything, because all among us, let’s be honest … You’re letting them blame God. This is not new. Adam, what did he say? The woman … He didn’t blame me. He went to sleep single. He did not pick Eve. She showed up, by the creative power of God. I’m in the mess I’m in because of you. That’s where it has to go. Then you have to convince some person that there’s a good, gracious, loving God in heaven, who has turned you into a victim.
How in the world can reformed people believe this when they believe that God is sovereign over absolutely everything, and never does evil? This so confounds the gospel at its basic premise of the personal, individual sinfulness of every person. I’m going to preach on Ezekiel 18 eventually, once I get all this going.
God says, “Every soul is mine.” Wow. “Every person is mine. I’m behind your life. I have directed that life, and I hold you completely responsibility to repent.” That’s the message of the gospel. That’s the message that must be preached. That’s the message that Ezekiel preaches in chapter 18, and at the end he says, “Forget about blaming somebody else, and repent.” Great gospel chapter.
This sounds, especially in the beginning, like Jordan Peterson’s discussion of intersectionality (about 3:40 into this video).
It is hard for me to see how it can be wrong to strive for equal social treatment for all. One may advocate for traditional Christian redemption and for equal social treatment at the same time without doing violence to either one. Where Christians have failed to treat others the way we want to be treated, remorse and apologies are in order. I learned that in kindergarten (well preschool, because I was evicted from preschool since I hadn’t learned that yet). Being honest about historical facts (e.g., native Americans and the trail of tears, or slavery or the captivity of Japanese) doesn’t compromise the gospel.
MacArthur’s blog where you can follow his thoughts on Social Justice.
Like this article and want to see more like it? Support this blog at Patreon.com.
[email-subscribers namefield=”NO” desc=”Subscribe to receive notification of new posts.” group=”Public”]
Image: The Master’s University, by Lukasinla [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], from Wikimedia Commons
“How in the world can reformed people believe this when they believe that God is sovereign over absolutely everything, and never does evil?” If you are consistent with your theology as a Calvinist, you agree with R.C. Sproul, Jr. that God is the author of evil. And speaking of Sproul, Jr., he’s a real disaster, too.
Vanessa, you’ve misunderstood Sproul Jr and fabricated a statement he did not make. I suspect you’re reading or referring to someone else who had read Almighty Over All by R.C. Sproul Jr. Either way, I suggest you read it carefully, (you too James). It will in the least help you to be more informed on God’s sovereignty.
Vanessa, you’ve misunderstood Sproul Jr and fabricated a statement he did not make. I suspect you’re reading or referring to someone else who had read Almighty Over All by R.C. Sproul Jr. Either way, I suggest you read it carefully, (you too James). It will in the least help you to be more informed on God’s sovereignty.
As a former Calvinist, I find it humorous that a staunch Calvinist/determinist thinks anything is a disaster for the gospel. Everything that happens is according to the decree of God, isn’t it, and don’t ALL the elect eventually go to heaven? For non-Calvinists, and especially to those of us who are leaning toward open theism, acts of preachers like Mark Driscoll, Douglas Wilson, Paige Patterson, Tom Chantry, C.J. Mahaney, Ravi Zacharias, the TBN folks, etc. are disasters for the gospel.
For Christians who are criticizing MacArthur. I don’t understand your protest here. The Gospel is all consuming. For a Christian it is external to you and the Gospel is what drives you. It first shapes your own self image, it informs and corrects your world view. To believe the Gospel, to come to Christ for life because you are now in agreement with Him about who you are is life changing. Who you are in relationship to God is new to you, your heart isn’t merely broken. You come to Him as you are, spiritually dead and in absolute rebellion against Him. You come into agreement with Jesus that you are depraved, wicked beyond hope and incapable of seeing your depravity without Him. The problem you perceive, while shaped through the Gospel is not starvation, inequality, or racism. Our great problem is our personal rebellion and the position we’re in because of it. Our great solution becomes nothing less than the Gospel. Offering a social gospel in place of the Gospel is like offering back rubs to lepers. The Gospel is not from you, it’s not your Gospel and it isn’t to be changed for what fits the societies perceived problems. That isn’t to say that we as Christians don’t attend to injustice, only that our solutions for injustice are ineffective at truly changing a person. I don’t expect anyone secular to appreciate or understand the Gospel. I do expect that you as Christians would be careful with anyone who works to change it to fit within our society.
“Offering a social gospel in place of the Gospel is like offering back rubs to lepers.”
Straw man. You do what MacArthur does. It seems effortless. None of the evangelicals who MacArthur opposes argue for social justice as a substitute for the gospel. No one. This is an argument to get you all excited but it is a straw man.
No it’s not. This is about Christian ignorance over the Gospel. Most Christians don’t know enough about the Gospel to produce an argument. Christians within the American Evangelicalism are under educated about their faith. (this is not to besmirch Christians at all) This would be a result of church leaders not being clear in teaching the Gospel. Without clarity, a works gospel is produced. Our churches have adopted the Social justice as works gospel. This has been pushed and preached for so long that many in the church recognize it as the Gospel. I can’t begin to count the programs, principles, books and articles written by Christian leaders advocating for social change without a hint of the Gospel being applied, an example being Celebrate Recovery. This is how a social gospel replaces the Gospel. For the majority of Christians, I suspect that because Jesus is mentioned this removes any concern or need for Christian argument. Of course no one is arguing to replace the Gospel with a social gospel, those replacing it don’t recognize what the Gospel is, (this is not new). This is why what MacArthur is saying is important. Christians believe they’re giving the Gospel when they don’t know what it is. This is what is driving MacArthur’s social justice dialogue. No matter what your opinion, the church preaches the good news, this is either social good news or it’s the Gospel, no in between. If you’re still in disagreement and believe this to be a straw man argument. Why don’t you openly define what the Gospel is? You are on one side of this. We can then all watch the mayhem unfold with the very argument you claim is not taking place.
Certainly not! But what a great point, what do we really need to be saved from? If I propose that we are victims of each other and of a fallen world. I remain outside of what the Scripture says I need to be saved from. The Bible is very clear, that I need to be saved from Him, from His judgement that is coming. The Gospel doesn’t propose that I need to be saved because I’m a victim or saved from the effects of sin. It proposes that the problem is me. The only solution is through my belief about who Jesus said He is, (there is a lot happening within that belief). This Gospel doesn’t leave any room to share it’s stage with other perceived problems and solutions.
Aarrn, you appear to be a human Chick tract.
!! That was good David. You have a good sense of humor. My response to that is that I’m not trying to convince you the Gospel is true. My post was directed to Christians. In fact, so was MacArthur’s blog and radio interview. I don’t expect anyone here to hold the Gospel in esteem or to believe anything more than that it is utter garbage, a fairy tale that allows idiots to continue a facade while they hold Scripture in their fists like weapons. That is how I once perceived the Gospel and Christians. No one was able to debate me into agreement with it. It’s enough for me to say that I do believe it and I have no interest in attacking you with it because you don’t believe it.
Presumptive, aren’t we.
No.
It was a rhetorical question. Objectively, you are. I don’t wish to be so myself, but I’m guessing you are also a little heavy on the Calvin.
Yes James, wicked, beyond hope, our depravity is total. Our only hope is found through faith in a single Jew named Jesus. I know. The Gospel is complete foolishness to most people. I’ll commit to praying for you that God begins His work in you.
Sometimes things seem foolish because they are foolish. Many Christians believe things which other Christians consider, at the very least, incorrect but possibly foolish as well. Fleshing all that out is way beyond the scope of any blog, but I can tell you that landing in the middle of a discussion with an arrogant and condescending attitude is not helpful.
Hi there. I cant thank you enough for your clear, wise, kind, grounded and truthful words.
It left me so convicted, that I gathered most of your comments on this blog post and saved them, in order to re-read and humbly learn. You articulated a deep understanding of the True Gospel of Jesus Christ, that is lacking amongst Christians these days. (the understanding that Johnny Mac seems to be fighting and calling for, from his comments)
I also shared your comments with a friend and we were wowed and humbled. You really held and spoke the Truth in Love on a topic that seem controversial for many, especially in ugly mire that is the internet
Anyways, Safe to say I had to make a disqus account, just to inquire on your testimony. I am so curious, and would love to be blessed by the story of how you came to saving faith. What is/has that journey of walking with Christ been like for you? let me know if you are willing to share and I can give you my email and have you send it to me privately. God bless you sir/ma’am
Wisdom is with the aged, and understanding in length of days. —Job 12:12
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction. —Proverbs 1:7
Well, I do have failing kidneys and bad lungs, and a wonky heart, so I should be fulfilling your wish fairly soon. Did you have a specific time frame in mind?
AM?
I assume that’s a reference to the frothing hatred on AM talk radio.
Only a person of extreme privilege could even fathom saying those things.
But all who have received Him, to them–that is, to those who trust in His name–He has given the privilege of becoming children of God… John 1:12
Now that’s privilege.
“The baby boomers can’t die fast enough.“
I’d say this lands pretty close to murder of the heart.
MacArthur just shuffling the selective scriptural cards- verses plucked from larger context to justify an actually unchristian opinion. There was similar shuffling used in other times to justify racism, anti-semitism , progressive politics, the union movement. To everything, there is a shuffle…and a time to be mendacious , under Heaven.
John MacArthur sounds like a perfect Dives.
So another 70+ yo, white American preacher who has been worshipped for decades as someone who knows something , is basically spouting AM talking points with a little jesus thrown in. The baby boomers can’t die fast enough. They are irrelevant and painfully ignorant as a group. Especially those that had power and were relevant seem to be getting closer to that death day and I think it freaks them out, since they know nothing of true peace.
It seems like JM’s argument is answered in James 2:16. If we just preach the gospel and do nothing about injustice, why would anyone listen? (Unless you are from the same group and also suffering.) People often can’t feel their own spiritual emptiness over the agony of their day to day suffering.
So, the gospel has nothing to do with forgiving one another for sins because nobody can be thought of as a victim, only as a perpetrator against God…got it…Now I just have to rewrite all of the Pauline epistles….
Did he actually say that or is that an inference you’re taking form something else he has said?
We subtly change the Gospel through mistaking the benefits of sanctification for the Gospel or the purpose of the Gospel. (The Gospel made me a Christian, being a Christian made me nice, therefor the gospel is about being nice). The Gospel is not about forgiving one another. It is instead a consequence of being made a Christian.
John MacArthur states, about people, “I see them with the eyes of God.” Well, there’s the first problem, John. You are not God, and have no idea how God sees people. He may see them as sinners; he may see them as victims; he may see them as both, since they are not mutually exclusive. People are responsible for repenting for their sins, and making restitution to those they have sinned against–whom I very nearly called victims, since they are those sinned against–people not responsible for the trouble they’re in, because it was caused by someone else.
MacArthur seems determined to blame victims for their situation, and refuses to see that the Bible calls on people to help those in need. Jesus himself is recorded as saying that what you have done to the help even the lowliest of people, you have done to him. He calls upon people to help widows, orphans, those who hunger and thirst, those who lack necessities, those in prison–he does not suggest just helping those who have not sinned, only those who are in need. John MacArthur is far less generous than Jesus. How can that be right?
This is far more articulate than anything I could have written, and highlights exactly what I was attempting to explain elsewhere in this comment section. MacArthur assumes his under-educated, ill-informed opinions constitute “the eyes of God.” Such self-centered, self-serving idolatry is what gave the world #SlaveholderReligion.
Thank you.
You’re kidding.
For thanking someone who called me articulate? The sequence is a little hard to follow, but why should I not thank them for a compliment?
No, I was responding to the person who found your articulation a compelling argument.
Speaking of Slaveholder Religion – did you read Chris Ladd’s now infamous article that he wrote for Forbes, and was taken down by Forbes within a couple of hours? I thought of you while reading it.
https://www.politicalorphans.com/the-article-removed-from-forbes-why-white-evangelicalism-is-so-cruel/
Wow. Thank you for bringing further attention to this explosive yet insightful account. Looks like Chris Ladd and Forbes learned what church pastors already know so well: never upset today’s frothing mob of white evangelicals still supporting Trump.
My charity might be a stretch here, but it seems to me that he doesn’t actually really think that he can see people as God sees them. I think the obvious meaning of the statement is that he sees people as God speaks of them in Scripture.
Where did MacArthur blame the victims of social injustice?
Right here in the article you didn’t read:
Your last paragraph was the one I was going to quote to answer that question. Thanks for getting there first.
I got here right after he did and could see him typing away below. Wanted to get him while he was still here 🙂
In the article I read the context gives meaning to the two sentences you isolated.
“Sin has consequence. It has social consequence. It has deadly consequence. I’m not denying the curse of Adam. I’m not denying that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the third and fourth generation. This is a sinful generation right here. Sinful fathers in this generation are going to make life really difficult for the next three, four generations. But nobody ever went to hell for the sin of Adam. Nobody ever went to hell for the sins of the fathers. They go because they believe not in Christ, and because they haven’t confronted their own sin in an honest way.”
How does MacArthur “…blame victims for their situation” particular those who were killed in WWII? And how does he refuse “…to see that the Bible calls on people to help those in need.” Is it possible that you’re misreading him here and inferring something from him that was not actually implied?
And do you agree with the most charitable reading of his statement about seeing people as God sees them is simply a way of saying that Scripture informs him on how he should understand the human condition?
Someone should tell John these two things aren’t mutually exclusive.
I’m curious, where does the gospel implicate a person as a victim?
Victim: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action.
If someone sins against you and harms you, you are a victim. The existence of human on human sin creates human victims of sin. His notion that there are no victims is absurd.
I don’t think Dr. MacArthur would disagree with your definition of who or what a victim is, nor would he dispute that human sin leads to victimization.
The broader context of what he’s dealing with here is properly defining the gospel. And if the gospel is the news that Jesus lived, died and rose again for the sole purpose of reconciling rebellious sinners to the Father, then you can see that victimhood is clearly out of place. Jesus reconciles sinners to God, not victims. (He may rescue victims, but that’s in a different category of God’s redemptive work.)
I do think he’s making an equivocation on the word victim that is confusing. But that’s not uncommon when people speak extemporaneously as he was here.
It doesn’t. But neither does it preclude one being a victim, as MacArthur seems to imply. These two things can be true at the same time:
1. Per the gospel, you are a perpetrator of sin and rebellion against God, and
2. You are a victim of some offense(s) committed (or being committed) against you.
So it would not contradict the gospel to say, “Black Americans, as a group, are victims of discrimination.”
As I’ve written elsewhere, Dr. MacArthur isn’t disputing the fact that victims exist as a result of fallen humanity. He’s arguing that the gospel saves sinners who are active and culpable in their rebellion, not passive victims.
In other words, victims exist because sin exists but there is no victim class of people called “Sinner”.
Does anyone argue otherwise? Here’s what he actually said, emphasis added by me:
The gospel doesn’t say “you are not a victim” in a universal sense. It does say “you are a perpetrator of sin and rebellion”. My point is that you can be a perpetrator of sin and a victim of, say, persecution. Because of sex, skin color, whatever.
According to you, his one fan.
I second that. Josh Elsom is winning. Although, I may be his second fan.
Have you and phil8 placed bets on this or something? Let’s try to keep this mature, shall we?
I don’t even know what that means. Who is claiming a “victim class of sinner?” Horizontal offenses exist and deserve to be addressed, as an entire demographic if necessary. In the Christian faith, one can sin against God and also against one’s fellow human beings – they are not mutually exclusive.
We are told that “man does not live by bread alone” but we are supposed to feed the hungry. What kind of missionary would expect people to listen to the Gospel while he sits by and lets them go starving? The idea that the Gospel is so one dimensional as you and McArthur imply is a problem, and the Fall can’t be an excuse not to address wrongs (or to excuse them).
When following doctrinal positions prevents us from helping those who hurt, or even validating their experience, something is wrong – either with the doctrine or the implementation.
“Who is claiming a ‘victim class of sinner?'”
Nearly everyone commenting on this thread. It’s happening because they refuse to read Dr. MacArthur charitably or in context and that’s leading them to make a category error.
Dr. MacArthur never said and never wrote that people don’t fall victim to sinful behavior. That’d be a fool’s errand to prove. Nor did he ever say that God will not vindicate those who have fallen victim to injustice. All that he’s doing is drawing a line in the sand and saying “This is the gospel and that is not the gospel”.
The justice of God implicates sinners who rebel against him, therefore, the gospel is good news to sinners who repent. IOW, a person who willfully chooses to sin against God isn’t a victim, they are a rebel in need of redemption.
As I wrote elsewhere, it’s very clear that Dr. MacArthur is equivocating on the word victim to make his point. He’s speaking against the theological idea that righting wrongs committed against people who are victims of injustice is the gospel. It’s not the gospel. It’s derivative of the gospel but it is not itself the gospel. Therefore, we should not speak of victims when sinners are the category of people who need saving.
And, FYI, I think that Dr. MacArthur has a truncated gospel. For him, the gospel is justification. I think it’s much much bigger than just that. So I don’t necessarily share his perspective. But it does no one any good to misrepresent the man.
It seems to me that you are splitting hairs in defense of MacArthur. I think Warren summed it up well here (emphasis mine):
It is hard for me to see how it can be wrong to strive for equal social treatment for all. One may advocate for traditional Christian redemption and for equal social treatment at the same time without doing violence to either one. Where Christians have failed to treat others the way we want to be treated, remorse and apologies are in order. … Being honest about historical facts (e.g., native Americans and the trail of tears, or slavery or the captivity of Japanese) doesn’t compromise the gospel.
You seem laser focused on what is labeled as “The Gospel” or good news, i.e. the reconciliation of God and man. While that may be the central component of the message, it certainly isn’t the only responsibility of the Church or Christians in general. MacArthur seems to be dipping into the culture war waters, specifically a right wing talking point about “identity politics.”
He is taking a much wider swath than you, and not making much sense to me. His definition of social justice is not one I’ve ever heard, and certainly don’t agree with. Likewise with this claim that “[y]ou have moral authority, because you’re in multiple victim classes.” This is just politics with a slightly theological spin attached.
The SBC came about directly as a result of racial discrimination and practiced it for many decades, well into the last century. It wasn’t until the late 80s that they made a concerted effort to shake the image and even that was resisted. There are still plenty of SBC churches that would rather an African American family not visit (something MacArthur denies). What is wrong with the SBC apologizing for this injustice? MacArthur seems to think it is “a complete disaster” for them to.
Where you are ultra-specific in what you see MacArthur saying, I find he is all over the place about this. If one were to take him literally, the Church would be seen as cold and unfeeling, arrogant and irresponsible (remind you of something?), caring only about selling fire insurance to as many people as possible, without bothering to follow any of the myriad examples and teachings of Christ.
Being in favor of social justice should be lauded, not attacked. It does not necessarily mean replacing “The Gospel” with a “Social Gospel.” MacArthur’s position, and this entire line of thinking, is just bizarre to me.
As I said above, I don’t share MacArthur’s perspective of the gospel. I believe his view is too narrowly focused (probably because of his dispensationalism). I believe that God is reconciling the entire cosmos to himself (Col 1:19-20) in Christ through his blood. So I would agree that racial reconciliation is in aspect part of the good news of Jesus’ sovereign rule over creation. And that being the case, I do believe this is work that the church ought to involve herself in. However, what I personally soundly reject, is mixing that theological reality with contemporary socio-political theories and their methodologies. And that’s where I stand with Dr. MacArthur. We may not agree on the gospel’s scope or extent but we do agree that we must not confuse the methods of the Athenians for the freedom that was found in Jerusalem.
…plus I cannot stand to see theologically illiterate keyboard warriors hiding behind their avatars tearing down a good man like John MacArthur (not you, btw).
What an arrogant, thoughtless narrative to claim as one’s faith.
Thank you for documenting this latest MacArthur absurdity from Master’s University. The entire account here can be easily summarized as “Why a Master’s Degree in Divinity from 1963 won’t help you understand Intersectionality today.” And sadly, MacArthur’s strategy is nothing more than “My-Ignorance-Is-Superior-To-The-Informed-Knowledge-Of-Others.” His (willfull?) misunderstanding of intersectionality is not a sufficient replacement for a legitimate counter-argument he clearly does not have. What in the world are they teaching at Master’s University? Not reading comprehension, elementary logic, or critical thinking.
CS Lewis called this chronological snobbery.
Has theology changed so much over the past 55 years that an MDiv from 1963 is now irrelevant? My goodness, if that’s true, the Apostles were really out of touch.
Here’s why you are struggling: neither CS Lewis nor the Apostles attempted to criticize Intersectionality, something they knew nothing about.
And there’s a good reason why you can’t defend John MacArthur’s attempt to dismiss Intersectionality: MacArthur’s intellectual sloth is indefensible.
I’m not struggling and I’m not defending MacArthur, per se. I’m inviting you to defend your claims.
Were there marginalized classes and victimized people groups in the 1950’s and the first century? Certainly Lewis was aware of the Civil Rights movement going on in the US and the Apostles the abuses of Imperial Rome. So were the Apostles and Lewis wrong or ill-equipped to confront the social inequities of their days simply because they didn’t have access to or understand a 20th-21st century socio-political construction?
Citing a Crenshaw quote you just found proves nothing other than your ability to type a Crenshaw quote into a Disqus textbox. You’ll need to work much, much harder to justify John MacArthur’s profound ignorance.
And typing ad hominem comments in response to phil8 isn’t a refutation of the quote the he offered you.
Doesn’t work that way with theology, James.
Thanks for covering this!
Your response is more fully biblical than his, certainly: we are to pursue justice (both legally and socially) and evangelism, and there need be no either/or.
I did grow up among those who hold to Johnnie Mac’s view that they ARE in conflict, however, so I’m not surprised at his view. As for his use of ‘intersectionality’, I’m guessing he’s trying to put a trendy shade of lipstick on the old pig.
I would class myself as Calvinist and Reformed and Evangelical, and I don’t like what MacArthur is saying here, mainly because it doesn’t square with what the Bible says.
MacArthur attacks the idea of people seeing themselves as victims. Instead, he says, they should see themselves as sinners. He then points out that one of the keys to becoming a christian is a repentance of your own sin.
I agree with repentance. But the Bible is full of people who are depicted as victims. “Jesus Wept” at the suffering of people. There is no theological problem with believing in the doctrine of Total Depravity alongside the idea that people suffer because of the actions of others.
MacArthur himself contradicts himself in this statement. He speaks of the millions killed during world war 2 as proof of total depravity (which it is), but he doesn’t seem to realise that they were victims.
Like MacArthur, I do believe that the church’s main responsibility should be the teaching and preaching of the gospel so that people come to faith in Christ and have their lives changed via the work of the Holy Spirit. But I also believe that God’s acts of saving grace does not nullify his common grace, that is, God’s work of blessing the entire world through his actions of controlling the universe. The rain falls on the just and unjust alike.
Civil Government is part of this common grace. And civil government can set up laws that can limit the extent to which sin acts to damage society. I live in Australia, and one of the things our government does is provide universal health care funded from taxation. This, to me, is one of the ways that God uses common grace to bless my country at the current time. I am also a recipient of government welfare because I am disabled and no longer able to work. At any other point in history my life would be ruined but the pension I receive is an act of God’s common grace to prevent me and my family from collapse.
“He speaks of the millions killed during world war 2 as proof of total depravity (which it is), but he doesn’t seem to realise that they were victims”
He’s speaking extemporaneously here and makes a subtle but intentional equivocation on the term victim. Something he would probably communicate more carefully if he were writing.
He is not disputing the fact that victims exist as a result of fallen humanity. He’s arguing that the gospel saves sinners who are active and culpable in their rebellion, not passive victims.
In other words, victims exist because sin exists but there is no victim class of people called “Sinner”.
Never been impressed by the man — but then he’s a young Earth creationist, so there’s no reason to expect any good rational arguments about any position he feels predisposed to support.
I guess he thinks it’s a clever way to attack the left-led social justice movement without revealing any of political prejudices, but his argument borders on incoherence. For one, he seems to equate the millions of real victims of injustice large and small in the classes he lists with the few outspoken representatives to dare to speak out and fight back against the injustices they have suffered — i.e. the social justice warriors.
Telling a women who has been systematically abused that she is not a victim and that she only has her own sinful nature to blame is appalling. Likewise, telling minorities who have faced roadblocks in life at every turn through no fault of their own. Many of them likely don’t even see themselves as victims in the first place, or already blame themselves (incorrectly) for landing in their hopeless spiral.
I guess if you believe that it’s suffering and hopelessness leads people to God, then the more callous the better…
MacArthur is illustrating “Theological Malpractice,” to borrow an expression I learned from Dr. Rev. William J. Barber II.
He said: “If you’re a homosexual or lesbian black woman, you are the most empowered human being in this culture. You have moral authority, because you’re in multiple victim classes.”
So….all moral authority should go to straight white male bigots like him and he’s not getting his entitlement? Pobrecito.
I wonder what he would think of this 2009 essay by the Rev. Osagyefo Uhuru Sekou. http://killingthebuddha.com/mag/damnation/gays-are-the-new-niggers/
MacArthur’s sense of entitlement is a form of idolatry.
He didn’t say that moral authority belongs to whites. You’re filling in the blanks. He said that victimhood itself does not confer authority. That’s all.
Being victims of pervasive institutional injustice confers moral authority upon the victims. I know that statement flies in the face of “conservative” white evangelicalism, but I stand by it.
It is deeply offensive to dare challenge John MacArthur’s white evangelical idolatry, didn’t you know?
Who told you that?
That’s my conclusion after 67 years of living in America.
Dr. MacArthur is 79. Do we give deference to his conclusion because he’s older than you?
I’m not a proud bigot, for starters.