Statement from John MacArthur
October 22, 2018
For 33 years, since 1985, I have had the rare and enriching privilege of serving The Master’s University and Seminary as president.
I originally signed up for 5 years, thinking I would be able — along with my pastoral ministry at Grace Community Church — to help strengthen the University and Seminary. I underestimated the hold that educating young Christians for gospel influence on the world would have on me.
Class after class, year after year, as new students arrived, I found it impossible to let go of the opportunity to educate their minds and hearts to take the Light of God’s truth into this dark world. So, I have stayed and loved every day of my service.
However, with the growth of the University and Seminary, demanding more leadership now and in the future, the time has come for me to transition to the position of Chancellor of the University and President of the Seminary.
The transition will provide for a new president for the university. This will occur over the next 18 months.
I rejoice in the 91-year impact of this institution, because of its faithfulness to the Bible, to the glorious Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His beloved church.
I am confident of the continuing influence of these schools for the kingdom of our Lord and I look forward to continuing to serve The Master’s University and Seminary in the years ahead.
29 thoughts on “John MacArthur Comments on Transition to Chancellor of The Master’s University”
The best thing for John MacArthur is to apply to graduate school and transition to becoming a student. Instead of fraudulently impersonating a scholar with a doctoral degree, why not become a real one?
I suspect that, even in the limited scope of study he would chose, he would be forced to confront inconvenient facts.
Where did he fraudulently impersonate a scholar with a doctoral degree?
I can’t speak for otrotierra, but did MacArthur change his CV to note the honorary nature of the doctorates? Also, was he not using the honorific outside the institution which gave him the honorary degrees?
Edit: It doesn’t appear to have changed – https://www.tms.edu/bio/johnmacarthur/
a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
To the first question, a Litt. D. and a D.D. are both honorary degrees. So it is correctly noted as honorary.
Second, that continues to be irrelevant. I know Warren is hot on this trail, but he is simply incorrect. I understand it. He has an earned doctorate. So do I. But that’s irrelevant to this situation. Yes, there are places that don’t want them used no matter what; but other places do use them so long as they are not presented as an academic doctorate.
In the end, unless the doctorate was used as an academic degree (and I have no evidence that it ever was), then it isn’t a fraudulent impersonation of a scholar with a doctoral degree.
Well, no, not really. The Doctor of Divinity is definitely honorary and in any event generally worthless. The Doctor of Letters is most often honorary. In this case, considering it was bestowed by MacArthur’s own organization it should also be considered pretty worthless as well.
By convention, they should both be listed as honorary, i.e. Hon. Litt.D. or Hon. D.D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_honorary_degrees
There is also no basis for MacArthur to be using the honorific and he should require that those who are stop. Christendom is rife with academic misrepresentation and, even if we give MacArthur a huge benefit of the doubt, he should still clean up his act to prevent association with this practice. If nothing else, it comes under avoiding “even the appearance of evil.”
You find honorary doctorates all over:
Reverend Larry awards Reverend Moe an Honorary Doctorate.
Reverend Moe awards Reverend Curly an Honorary Doctorate.
Reverend Curly awards Reverend Larry an Honorary Doctorate.
NYUK! NYUK! NYUK!
Exactly, which is why this stuff matters.
Well, yes, really. Honorary doctorates are not worthless. They are given to honor people. There is no academic misrepresentation. It isn’t academic at all.
And “avoiding the appearance of evil” in Scripture has nothing to do with appearance, but with actuality. It doesn’t take a doctorate to know that.
Once again you are trying to take this down a rabbit hole and I won’t be a part of it.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL. Good lord, Headless Unicorn Guy is right, you do accuse others of your own offenses. I mean, damn, how spot on. Truly, you could be president in these perverse times of up is down and down is up.
Regardless of what value you put on those particular “honors,” by convention, they should both be listed as honorary, i.e. Hon. Litt.D. or Hon. D.D. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_honorary_degrees
The way the degrees are listed here (https://www.tms.edu/bio/johnmacarthur/) it appears that they are earned. There is nothing to represent to a lay audience that they are honorary.
LT is all fine with misrepresentation but I continue to wonder why anyone would want to misrepresent. He lists his honorary degrees alongside his earned degrees without any hint that they are not earned. Look, I personally don’t care what the man does, but I am not going to say it is an honest representation just because it isn’t a big deal in the great scheme of things.
Warren, you wonder why anyone would want to misrepresent while misrepresenting me. Why? Please be honest about my position. I am not fine with misrepresentation at all. I detest it as much as you do, if not more. You should not misrepresent me or what I have said.
The question is whether or not this is a misrepresentation. The answer is that it is not. It is common knowledge that a D.D and a Litt. D. are honorary degrees. To put “D. D. (h.c.)” or “Litt. D. (honoris causa)” is redundant.
For someone who “doesn’t care what the man does,” you have certainly spilled a lot of cyber ink about it.
That’s rich coming from you.
It’s playing the Hurt Innocent.
I grew up with an NPD Sociopath. It’s a standard defensive shtick. Shift the blame 180 and put the accuser/exposer on the defensive while becoming the Poor Poor Persecuted Innocent.
According to The Sociopath Next Door, it’s one of the key indicators.
We used to call it “Shining the Stupid Ray on people”.
Well I have to admit, you have LT’s history of commentary here pegged. His complaints about those who engage him read like a catalog of his own issues. He has a practiced plan of attack which he repeats often. It works best with newer commenters who have not learned to avoid him. Do you recommend the book?
As you know, I didn’t shift the blame at all. I put it squarely where it belongs.
Tell me this: Why do you and David seem so obsessed with me? Isn’t that odd to you?
I am not a “Poor Poor Persecuted Innocent.” It makes me laugh to see (what I presume) are two grown men who have this obsession with a person they disagree with and consistently have no reasonable response or interaction aside from personal attacks. Notice how you have contributed nothing to this discussion other than a silly and obviously wrong personal attack. At least David tried to engage on the issue before resorting to a personal attack.
Get over yourself. If you don’t like me, I am fine with that. But why not just leave me alone?
You say that and then proceed to play the part. There is either malicious intent behind what you do here, or you have a serious problem, or both. Engaging you beyond a certain level is useless because it seems to feed a need you have to manipulate and dominate, a game I’m not going to play. I will, however, call you out for trying if it seems appropriate.
I am not playing that part at all. I find it utterly laughable that someone would even suggest it. There is no malicious intent, and I have no serious problem. You say it is useless to engage me, and yet you keep coming back. Perhaps it is you with a serious problem. Your “calling me out” is foolish. It is transparently personal and off topic. Why not just stop?
As you know, David, I have never misrepresented anyone and have readily apologized when I have misunderstood someone.
You are welcome to make the statement, but leave me out of it.
Remember, nothing here was addressed to you. You didn’t leave yourself out of it. You, as in the past, seem obsessed with me and unable to simply walk away. But you know that I don’t misrepresent anyone and have readily corrected and apologized when I have misunderstood.
As I said, you are welcome to make the statement, but leave me out of it.
You brought yourself into it, not me. So don’t play the victim. If you don’t want to be “in it” (whatever that means) then feel free not to comment. As you know, I try to give the respect of a response to those who respond to me and I always try to do it respectfully and truthfully.
Here is what is listed:
B.A., Los Angeles Pacific College
M.Div., Talbot Theological Seminary
Litt.D., Grace Graduate School
D.D., Talbot Theological Seminary
Many people in academia would know or assume the doctorates are honorary, but many outside of academic circles would not. That is why most schools who award them prefer awardees to designate them as honorary.
Designating them as honorary does nothing to detract from them being honors. Not doing so makes them seem like earned to degrees to at least some people who don’t understand academia (probably many people actually). So why not make it clear?
If you want to keep going, bang on. I’m done.
I agree with most of that. But that doesn’t make it necessary, nor does it make it misleading. A “D.D.” by definition is honorary. And most people outside of academia don’t care. You can tell by the great number of conversations that are going on elsewhere. They don’t know the difference between a PhD, an MD, a DO, an EdD, or anything else. And they don’t really care.
However, I still wonder why you misrepresented me, and why you are willing to let it go unchanged and unaddressed. Is it really no big deal to you? You are pretty hot on the ethics bandwagon against people, and I agree with almost all of it. But this seems a gap to me. If ethics are all that big of a deal to you, then it seems the most fundamental of ethics in conversation is to represent the other person as they would represent themselves.
Too much work?
He sounds too busy with his job to blog.
While you’re too busy trolling to get a real life…
Oh he’s very supportive as long as Warren is discussing issues with which he agrees. When he disagrees, he becomes a six-year-old.
Comments are closed.