If you haven’t done so already, please read the first part of “Summing It All Up” before continuing here.
Part 2 of the interview between Tim Challies and John MacArthur was published a few days after the first installment, and Challies says that several weeks have passed since the end of the conference. When Challies wrote his blog post, MacArthur’s Strange Fire book was to be released the following day, so from a marketing standpoint, the Challies blog was quite timely.
Kicking off the interview, Challies asked:
There are many areas of doctrine in which well-respected, godly theologians hold opposing views, and the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit are just one of them. Again, we are thinking here of the best and most gospel-centered of the continuationists. Why focus on this area now when it threatens to inhibit unity and further divide true believers? Why not focus on baptism or eschatology or another issue?
That’s a good question. There are probably thousands of different expressions or variations of Christianity worldwide, and they all disagree with each other about something. MacArthur comes across as completely sure of himself about everything, and completely sure he understands 100% of the content of the Bible (at least that’s the impression I get from what he says), in spite of the fact that there are numerous New Testament scholars in educational and research facilities across the globe who continuously are exploring new understandings about the apostolic era and what it means to Christians today. How can MacArthur believe he knows everything there is to know about a subject in the Bible and why does he choose to take this specific issue head on?
All true believers are unified at the core on those distinctives in the Spirit; but it takes time and study to experience that unity in our relationships. That’s why love must energize our quest for practical unity (Phil. 1:27)—love for God and His truth and love for one another. Even in 1 Corinthians 13:6, in the heart of Paul’s discussion about spiritual gifts, the apostle reminded his readers that “love rejoices in the truth.” So, drawing attention to serious error—error that’s being tolerated even in some of the otherwise-healthiest of churches—in order to recover and uphold the truth is a loving thing to do.
While it might be hard for some to understand, it was love that drove me to write this book and have this conference: love for God and His honor, love for His truth, love for His church and her purity, and, in the cases of the prosperity gospel that pervades the global movement, a love for the millions of souls who are trapped by some of the most deceitful false teaching that history has ever seen. It is my earnest desire and prayer to see the church unified. But a unity that knowingly tolerates error is not the unity that Scripture promotes. So, if we want to be truly unified, we have to be willing to confront error for the sake of the truth. And that might mean that superficial unity is disrupted.
MacArthur also said that he has taken on other issues in the past but, as you can read, both above, and by clicking the links to the interviews, he considers this particular problem vital in the world of Christian faith. I’ll take him at his word and believe he really does love the people he’s discussing, although from some of the responses I’ve read, his critics don’t feel loved. I’m no fan of the prosperity gospel, but again, that’s just one manifestation of the Charismatic movement, and I still think it could have been addressed in a more focused and measured way.
Challies asked:
We often hear today that many believers from a Muslim background—especially those from closed countries who do not have easy access to God’s Word—are claiming they had a vision of Christ and that in this vision he directed them to a place or person where they could hear the gospel. This proclamation of the gospel led to their conversion. Do you believe these stories? Do you consider such visions a valid means that God may work in our world today?
Oh, that. Of course, MacArthur believes such events are completely bogus and not even a single supernatural event revealed Christ to a Muslim (or anyone else) apart from the Bible.
But that also contradicts much of what a Chinese evangelist named Brother Yun wrote in his book The Heavenly Man: The Remarkable True Story of Chinese Christian Brother Yun. I reviewed this book nearly ten months ago (it was given to me by a friend), and Yun describes situations that occurred after China’s Communist Revolution, where Christ was supernaturally revealed to people who had absolutely no access to Bibles or Christian Missionaries. If you lock down a nation so tightly that no foreign Missionaries are allowed in and it’s nearly impossible to smuggle in even portions of a Bible, is God not going to act?
I can’t testify to the validity of any of these supernatural acts. I haven’t witnessed any of them. In reading Yun’s book, even I thought certain portions seemed exaggerated or fabricated. But then again, I can’t completely discount the possibility of God directly intervening in our universe, performing acts that defy the natural laws we are accustomed to in order accomplish His purposes.
According to what I’ve been told, MacArthur believes he was physically attacked, in front of witnesses, by a demon possessed woman but he doesn’t believe that even one person could have had a revelation of Jesus in a vision. Go figure.
Regarding the visions in question, it is important to recognize that those who have investigated such claims have found the evidence to be sorely lacking. For example, this article directly addresses the issue.
I suppose that brings us to the crux of the matter. Do I believe that people in the Muslim world are actually seeing Jesus Christ? No, I do not. Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15:8 that he was “the last of all” to see the risen Christ. So, I believe that precludes anyone outside of those listed in 1 Corinthians 15 of being able to claim legitimate visions of the resurrected Savior. (The apostle John, of course, was one of those included in 1 Corinthians 15. Accordingly, I don’t believe the book of Revelation sets a precedent for believers to expect genuine visions of Jesus to occur throughout church history.)
Furthermore, it is important to note that these individuals are still unbelievers when they reportedly have these experiences. Consequently, these experiences (whatever they are reported to be) cannot constitute examples of the charismatic gifts having continued, since spiritual gifts are only given to believers (1 Cor. 12:7)—and these people do not come to saving faith until later.
Finally, the New Testament clearly states that the way in which the gospel is spread in this age is through preaching.
If performing a supernatural act were the only way for God to communicate to a non-believer in order to further His plan, would God be inhibited because the person He was trying to reach was a non-believer? Good grief, God even revealed Himself to Laban in a dream (Genesis 31:24) and he spoke directly with the evil magician Baalam (see Numbers 22:9-12 for an example) when Balak, King of Moab, wanted the sorcerer to curse Israel.
It seems you don’t have to be a believer to hear from God.
No one comes to God as part of a rational process, it’s a leap of faith, and I believe God does make Himself known in some manner, in order to bring people to Him. No, I never had a dream, saw a vision, or heard a voice from Heaven, but a long series of extremely unlikely events happened in my life in a period of six months to a year which ultimately brought me to faith. The process wasn’t entirely intellectual. I didn’t read and study the Bible with the result that I believed and came to faith in Christ. God did something inside to bring me to Him. I can’t articulate it. I just know it happened.
And preaching was really only a very minor part in my finally professing faith.
I suppose John MacArthur would think I’m some kind of fruit loop.
Challies asked a number of other important questions, but the last one really got my attention:
The Strange Fire conference focused primarily on the worst examples of the Charismatic and Pentecostal movements. While the charlatans rightfully need to be exposed and rebuked, there are also many godly Christians who feel like they have been unjustly tarnished with an overly broad generalization.
Exactly! I think a lot of people feel unjustly targeted, insulted, and maligned by the multiple presentations at the “Strange Fire” conference.
MacArthur responded in part by saying:
First, I want to clearly state that I take no joy in being perceived as unloving or in hurting the feelings of fellow believers. My heart is deeply burdened by the errors and excesses that I have spoken out against in Strange Fire. I do not issue these criticisms flippantly. I would also direct readers to the first part of this interview, where I interact with the idea that I have made an overly broad generalization.
But for those who want to get angry at me, I would humbly suggest that such anger is misplaced.
MacArthur went on to say that after the conference, he read a blog post written by a Pentecostal named Josiah Batten called A Pentecostal in (General) Support of the Strange Fire Conference (Challies didn’t provide a link on his blog post but I’m inserting it here so you can read Batten’s content). In a nutshell, MacArthur was thrilled with this response because he had achieved his goal with the individual involved: MacArthur had gotten him to think, to consider MacArthur’s position without defensiveness.
Oh, MacArthur and Batten didn’t end up agreeing, but Batten did point out some of the obvious issues with the Pentecostal movement while also acknowledging that he thought MacArthur had made some mistakes in his theology.
The interview dribbled out and ended without much flourish. There were lots and lots of comments in response on both of the Challies blog posts (comments are now closed) which may add some dimension, but I don’t really want to read hundreds of these statements and then try to say something about them.
In trying to sum all this up in my head, it seems like the conference offered one general impression and these interviews presented a somewhat related or parallel process. I think the conference really did paint with an overly broad brush and depicted all or the vast majority of Charismatics everywhere are dangerous or potentially dangerous, rather than just “wrong.”
Given the opportunity, MacArthur (with a MacArthur-friendly interviewer) was able to add more details to his views and, in certain instances, soften them up a bit. He remains hard-line in the end that he’s right and that the people who disagree with him should change and join him. He bases this stance on the perception that his interpretation of the Bible must, because of his scholarship, be correct in an absolute or near-absolute sense, and that he cannot be wrong.
Granted, if he’s trying to convince people to change, he can’t actually admit that he could be capable of error in his interpretations and assumptions, so confidence (to the point of arrogance sometimes) is expected. On the other hand, John MacArthur is indeed human and as such, he is just as capable of being wrong as the next man, even a highly educated and well-read next man. A certain tradition drives MacArthur’s perception as much as a learned interpretation of scripture, although that tradition, by necessity, drives MacArthur to deny that tradition has anything to do with how he perceives the Bible.
I agree that the study and the quest for correctly understanding scripture is the first and best means of understanding the intent and will of God for our lives. I’m also aware that exactly how we go about it, what system we employ, and the set of traditions (whether we’re conscious of them or not) that filter our interpretations are going to result in different believers coming to different conclusions about what the Bible is saying to us.
Beyond all that, once we believe we have discovered “truth,” what we do about it is critical. We can choose to demonize those we disagree with or we can find another way to get our point across. Frankly, demonizing people is a better way to get attention. Holding a controversial conference will definitely draw a much bigger crowd than a less dramatic and perhaps more user-friendly approach.
And MacArthur wants to draw a big crowd. In fact, he wants to attract the estimated 500 million Charismatics in the world. Yes, he got his message across to a lot of people. The book, at least in the short run (once marketing runs out of steam, the popularity of the book will likely dwindle), will reach even more folks than the “buzz” about the conference.
Bad press is still press, so everyone who criticizes MacArthur, including little ol’ me, still makes sure that he’s not ignored. Being ignored is the worst possible outcome that could happen to MacArthur and the “Strange Fire” conference and book. If people just paid no attention to him or them (like they should have to the recent comments of Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame), then MacArthur and his views would have nowhere to go.
But MacArthur knows enough about human nature to make sure that he and “Strange Fire” would never be ignored and in fact, would grab lots and lots of attention and press in the Christian media space.
But as I said before, his entire goal wasn’t just to get attention, but to get Charismatics to think and even to change. Has he accomplished this? Making 500 million people feel insulted, abused, and harassed usually doesn’t get them to agree with you. I’m sure A&E’s banning Phil Robertson from being part of filming Duck Dynasty or GLAAD getting in Robertson’s face (figuratively) over their perceptions of his motives won’t elicit an apology and change of theological opinion from the Duck Dynasty patriarch anytime soon.
If MacArthur wants to transform even a non-trival number of Pentecostals into sola scriptura Fundamentalists, I don’t really know what he could have done differently to accomplish his task. I just don’t see what he actually did working, at least not for very many people. I think the audience that listened to him the most was the one that was already convinced. I think he was “preaching to the choir.”
Morning Meditations 
James: You say “I agree that the study and the quest for correctly understanding scripture is the first and best means of understanding the intent and will of God for our lives. I’m also aware that exactly how we go about it, what system we employ, and the set of traditions (whether we’re conscious of them or not) that filter our interpretations are going to result in different believers coming to different conclusions about what the Bible is saying to us.”
The set of traditions (including the way we conceive dates and times in a Roman based calendar) is something that we should be really aware when we read the Scriptures.
Having said that, one day, 3 1/2 years ago, I read the following: “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Mat 12:40
Yeshua Himself said clearly 3 days AND 3 NIGHTS. That does not match actual belief on Him dying on a Friday and rising on a Sunday. Sorry. It does not match at all. So, what did I do?
I chose to BELIEVE His words. So I went on changing my way of thinking. I thought “Out of the Box” soft of speak. And I found an answer. A complete answer that solved the 3 days and the 3 nights.
After that, I found the Hebrew Roots of our Faith. I found the correct way to understand scripture and have followed that path ever since… not that all questions have been resolved yet, but I’m into it.
That’s certainly a good example of comparing what scripture actually says to long-held traditions and assumptions and modifying your beliefs accordingly. It’s probably not that simple with all scripture, of course, and we all still have certain filters we use to view the Word of God. Even the terms “Hebrew Roots” and “Messianic Judaism” don’t really describe a single viewpoint or theology, as within those “labels” exists a multitude of sub-groups, all espousing particular perspectives on various theological issues.
That being the case, the best we can do is to try and put our pursuit of truth above our emotional attachments and, when we find some bit of evidence that contradicts a long-held and emotionally prized position, we must be willing to use that evidence to honestly question our assumptions and beliefs and, if the evidence is sound, allow it to change us, whether it feels good or not (and sometimes it doesn’t).
I agree. Sometimes, changes and adjustments on your way of living are difficult to achieve. Leaving the long time feasts that Rome created and getting a hold on God’s Feasts is somehow challenging. You have to go against society and even family pressures.
James, you mentioned something in passing that gives me reason to ponder — actually, you quoted MacArthur mentioning something about the “prosperity gospel” as a feature of many parts of the Charismatic movement. It seems to me that some question of boundaries and definitions has been raised. While I suspect that “the Charismatic Movement” is vastly more multi-variant than the messianic movement, I suspect also that large segments of it have little or nothing to do with the definable essence of charismatica, just as there are many who associate in some degree with the messianic Jewish movement who do not actually conform to (or even accept) the tenets of Jewish Rav-Yeshua messianism. Certainly the prosperity gospel (as little as I understand it) seems to me entirely unrelated in any degree to the spiritual gifts that are intended to empower a community of believers to operate as a heaven-guided community.
This is where the accusation of “painting with too broad a brush” comes in, PL. Pentecostalism or the Charismatic movement (and I don’t think they’re exactly the same thing) are enormous umbrellas under which we may find all manner of theologies and practices, including the “prosperity gospel.” It would be like living in a large neighborhood with a common name but within “the hood” there being numerous subdivisions, each with its own identity and set behaviors.
Just because you are identified with a neighborhood doesn’t mean you always do what the neighbors do. You may not even like what the neighbors do, but you still are living next to them.
Oh wow! I just discovered that Michael Brown wrote a book in response to John MacArthur called Authentic Fire. Now that’s got to be an experience.
Sorry. Just had to share that.
The question was asked:
“Why focus on this area now when it threatens to inhibit unity and further divide true believers? Why not focus on baptism or eschatology or another issue?”
Not to speak for MacArthur, but I think he is focusing on this issue because he believes that this is where the reputation of the church is being most damaged. Some of these abuses he describes open the church to open, and sadly justifiable, ridicule.
You will argue (and rightfully so) that the reputation for being unloving and dogmatic are just as harmful as the sorts of abuses that MacArthur is harshly confronting.
It raises the question: “When (if ever) is harshness justified?”
I find that the Bible authorizes a certain amount of harshness when it comes to dealing with false teachers, whether it be Jesus dealing with the Pharisees (e.g. Matt 23), or Paul dealing with Bar-Jesus the sorcerer (Acts 13:6-11), or Peter’s discussion of false prophets in 2 Peter 2. In general, when people claim to represent God, but do so falsely and in a manner that discredits God, a rebuke is in order.
That is, the church must judge within itself — which is quite different from judging those outside the church, which we are not to do (1 Cor 5). I gather that this is what MacArthur perceives as his mission with the Strange Fire conference/book. Again, I don’t always agree with him, and I think there is room for improvement in the way he presents his case.
@Proclaim Liberty – re: “Certainly the prosperity gospel (as little as I understand it) seems to me entirely unrelated in any degree to the spiritual gifts…”
In a sense, yes. However, the prosperity movement was certainly borne out of the “healing ministries” of the Charismatic movement. When one’s faith focuses on receiving one temporal blessing, it will move on to receiving others.
I find that the Bible authorizes a certain amount of harshness when it comes to dealing with false teachers, whether it be Jesus dealing with the Pharisees (e.g. Matt 23), or Paul dealing with Bar-Jesus the sorcerer (Acts 13:6-11), or Peter’s discussion of false prophets in 2 Peter 2. In general, when people claim to represent God, but do so falsely and in a manner that discredits God, a rebuke is in order.
Obviously Jerry, there are certain abuses within the Church (and I use the term in its widest possible sense) that must be addressed for the good of the body. Certainly, for example, a Pastor who is sexually abusing a number of women in his church must be held accountable in order to protect the flock. You can’t ignore something like that for the sake of “unity,” even though it will cause some chaos in the congregation once the information comes out and is being dealt with.
On the other hand, it’s a little dangerous to compare John MacArthur with Jesus, Paul, and Peter, since the first is Messiah and the other two are apostles. We have to believe that their state of holiness and righteousness was far beyond anyone who exists today, including MacArthur.
In his article Shall We Burn One Another at the Stake, Michael Brown compares this controversy to other much more significant abuses in the history of the Church:
OK, MacArthur isn’t calling for the execution of all self-professed Charismatics, and Brown acknowledges this:
The comment about a “collective war against charismatics” is quoted by Brown from MacArthur’s book, so the martial language is not used unfairly to characterize him.
I mentioned above that I agree there are times when it is necessary to take strong actions within the body of believers to stop abuses and protect the innocent, but even acknowledging this, how far do you go before you, as self-proclaimed protector, also become an abuser? Do the ends always justify the means?
Hi James. As you say:
“On the other hand, it’s a little dangerous to compare John MacArthur with Jesus, Paul, and Peter, since the first is Messiah and the other two are apostles. We have to believe that their state of holiness and righteousness was far beyond anyone who exists today, including MacArthur.”
Of course I agree (for otherwise I would not have commented about my disagreements with MacArthur). However, I would also say that “addressing abuses within the Church” must go beyond the obvious matters such as a pastor who abuses women. I think it must also include the correction of doctrinal matters. In Revelation 2, the church at Ephesus was commended for exposing false prophets. The churches in Pergamum and Thyatira were rebuked for failing to deal with false doctrine. In 1 Cor 5.
Unfortunately, dealing with “doctrinal abuses” is very difficult because we lack unity regarding what the Bible teaches — even among those who subscribe to “sola scriptura”. What happens when millions of professing Christians believe something that is false? How does the “correcting pastor” assume a position of authority over the others? How do you proceed in a manner that is both considerate of feelings, and yet forceful? How do you get people other that the “choir” to listen?
None of these questions are easy, which is why there aren’t many pastors who would be willing to take on widespread doctrinal abuses. From that perspective, I have to give MacArthur credit for caring enough to try, even if perhaps clumsily. I expect that he will succeed in getting some people to discuss the matter, and maybe even see what the scriptures say about it.
So, while I’m sure that some criticism of MacArthur justified, I think the critics must also look within. Hopefully, we are being constructive, and not just throwing darts at one of the few people willing to do the dirty work needs to be done. I expect that anyone who tries to correct doctrinal abuses has to expect being hit by a bunch of darts.
How does the “correcting pastor” assume a position of authority over the others? How do you proceed in a manner that is both considerate of feelings, and yet forceful? How do you get people other that the “choir” to listen?
I think you end up with what we’ve got: a whole lot of different denominations within Christianity disagreeing with one another, and in this instance, polarization between these two factions. All you can do is put information out there and support your reasoning. It’s up to the individual or the local church to come to some sort of conclusion.
I don’t think conflicts/debates such as these will stop this side of the Messiah. The more obvious examples, as I cited above, are easy, because the standards for proper behavior for a Pastor are pretty much agreed upon by everyone. As far as MacArthur goes, a lot of what he suggests, I agree with, but it’s the way he tries to get his points across I object to.
As much as MacArthur would like to assume the “correcting Pastor” position for the universal Church, he’s not going to get there. Translating that concept into something more appropriate for the Messiah, only the King will lead his people and his nation with the entire world unified under him.
James, yes, Dr. Brown wrote that book as a response and his own polemical viewpoint. Wouldn’t it be funny if, behind the scenes, both camps orchestrated this to sell books and conferences for both sides?
I’ve probably mentioned before that I can’t believe MacArthur really thinks he will win converts from among charismatics, and neither will the other side win convert cross-overs. I believe JM was more interested in solidifying his own hold on his camp and preventing loss of brand loyalty. If you hear the cynicism coating my words, it’s because that is what is meant. Many in the neo-Calvinist camp are already sympathetic or accepting of continuism. It doesn’t look like he is winning any of these back either.
My take is that which camp one is drawn to has more to do with how a person is emotionally/neurologically put together than any theological convincing. The porridge is either too hot or too cold. Some people are overly closed and some overly open. I try to avoid both extremes.
To deny that God can speak to any person any way he wishes borders on dishonor. Perhaps in his studies he missed that Pharoah, Laban, Pontius Pilot and other wicked people had dreams, as well as seekers such as Cornelious, and the Ethiopian eunich was allowed a miraculous visitation. While I accept that such things can happen, “Heavenly Man,” is filled with holes and lack of validation of everything he has said. I believe Paul was saying he was the last of the sent ones to see the risen Messiah; not offering a theological creed that such things could never happen again.
James, yes, Dr. Brown wrote that book as a response and his own polemical viewpoint. Wouldn’t it be funny if, behind the scenes, both camps orchestrated this to sell books and conferences for both sides?
Makes the “conspiracy theorist” in me want to stand up and shout. 😀
On the other hand, I think both MacArthur and Brown are actually sincere in representing their positions.
When all is said and done and the Messiah returns, I suspect he (Messiah) will shoot holes in all of our belief systems. I’m not saying it’s useless to search the Bible for truth, just that we can’t expect to be right 100% of the time (or maybe not even 90%…80%?).
I would think one way to guarantee that you won’t see truth revealed is to arrogantly cling to doctrine and dogmatism. I am no way a conspiracy theorist, but, you know how Hollywood creates feuds between stars for publicity? See how fake, “discernment ministries,” and the scofflaws they go after usually focus on theology and fail to mention that both sides are raking in the $$$$$. Liberal and conservative politicians may appear to reside on different sides of the isle, but they both vote for increases in their wages and benefits, and vote against any attempts at transparency. See, the attorneys on both sides of the box are really good buddies, each milking their clients for all they are worth.
When Brown announced his new counter book, I commented, “Was this planned?” This usually doesn’t happen, but about 3 minutes later, and it would have been 3 am his time, I get back a response from Dr. Brown, “What do you mean by that?”
@James – I think that you and I are (again) mostly in agreement.
You said: “All you can do is put information out there and support your reasoning. It’s up to the individual or the local church to come to some sort of conclusion.”
I suspect that MacArthur would say that this is just what he did with the Strange Fire conference. Sure, there are different ways he could have gone about it, which is perhaps more a matter of style. I don’t expect that there will be lots of converts either way (and MacArthur probably doesn’t expect that either), but I’m pretty sure MacArthur regards it has his duty to present the “correct view” as he sees it, and leave the results up to God.
Ah, I remember the days before I had even heard of John MacArthur and didn’t know cessationism from continualism, and it was just a matter of reading the Bible and praying in order to draw nearer to God. But then people, especially “popular” theologians have to jump in and mess things up for the rest of us. 😉
There are a few things we believers can be dogmatic about, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Yeshua, the shema. But when the resident apostle to the Gentiles writes, “we see through a glass, darkly …” I grow cautious with what I am dogmatic about.
(I am amazed at how Dr Brown got a 326 page book written & published so quickly after the conference – chaya may be on to something)
To be fair, Brown has been railing against the book and conference since before the conference took place. He was in possession of an advance copy of MacArthur’s book, so his window for writing a response is a bit longer than it may seem.
On the other hand, Brown and MacArthur may be in cahoots. Maybe they’re getting kickbacks somehow. 😉
Well, perhaps not formally in cahoots, but certainly using the other as a springboard for free advertising of their stuff. You know the adage, “There is no such thing as bad publicity.”
Perhaps Dr. Brown doesn’t sleep, as he often seems to be posting at all hours, unless someone is helping him out.