UPDATE 1.25.2011 | Darrin Patrick responds to John MacArthur -- Not Radical Individualism: A Reply to John MacArthur - They are good words, gracious words.
----------
I've learned a lot from John MacArthur since becoming a Christian. He was a "go to" preacher early on for me. I met him at SBTS somewhere in the early 2000's it was a great pleasure for me.
He was interviewed on Sunday night by Phil Johnson - Theology & Ministry: An Interview with John MacArthur. Go forward until there's about 27 minutes remaining and start listening (for context). With a little more than 25 minutes to go you get John MacArthur saying this...
You know, there's a new book on church planting written by a guy named Darrin Patrick and it says if you want to be an effective church planter, develop your own theology.
You know when I read that I just almost fell off the chair. What? I mean, can you think of anything worse than to have some guy develop his own theology? This is ultimate niche marketing. Develop your own style, your own wardrobe, and then your own theology.
Anyone care to rip this apart? MacArthur should be embarrassed.
UPDATE: And you should buy and read Darrin Patrick's Church Planter, endorsed by Al Mohler, Ed Stetzer, Matt Chandler, Tim Keller, Mark Dever, and others who see things a little different than John MacArthur.
I'd be interested to know if there's a particular line in the book where he's drawing this from. If anything, the tone of Patrick's book leads me to think that if he said "you need to develop your own theology" means that he is calling young, thoughtless men to develop their thinking and train their minds in the things of God. Namely, develop your own theology and don't be a cultural jelly-fish. Be a man.
Further, the middle section of his book drives the point home of historic, broadly confessional Christian faith (i.e. Ch. 8 A Historical Message) , and even going out of his way to drive home penal substitutionary atonement (p. 123). I think MacArthur is being ungracious here and misreading one line - though I am sure he's reading the whole book - apart from the context of what Patrick does say, and the context of sections where he might say such a thing.
Posted by: Jacob | 01/20/2011 at 09:52 PM
I just finished this book and I am trying to remember where Patrick said that.
Does anybody have the location/page of it?
Posted by: Joseph Louthan | 01/20/2011 at 09:53 PM
I'm trying to remember where Patrick even wrote that—particularly since that's exactly opposite of everything he writes in his chapter on contextualization. I've still got to listen to MacArthur's audio, but does he reference a page number or anything?
Posted by: Aaron Armstrong | 01/20/2011 at 10:00 PM
I would echo what Jacob has written. If Darrin is saying that the church planter needs to develop his theology rather than merely methodology, then John got him wrong and unfairly. I am willing to assume that this is the case from what I have seen of Darrin up to this point.
I trust that when you say "rip apart" you mean graciously and with a gospel-centered intent we consider John's words? And that if there is a question in our mind that requires clarification we inquire as such?
Posted by: Matthew Henry | 01/20/2011 at 10:08 PM
MacArthur isn't stating a position that needs to be considered. He's attacking a brother publicly. I think anyone who knows Darrin or read the book (including endorsers Mohler, Dever, Keller, Stetzer, Chapell, Chandler, several others) need to respond to MacArthur strongly and publicly. The gospel of grace needs men of courage to stand up and speak when injustice is done.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 01/20/2011 at 10:16 PM
Context is MacArthur saying that he developed his theology reading Puritans and listening to Van Til, etc. He doesn't say the word "develop" but that's what he means. Then he talks about Patrick as if developing theology means same as developing a wardrobe. Just silly. Obviously anything Patrick says is about a guy developing a theology, having one. Not YOUR OWN, but knowing it and owning it. I had to write theological position papers in school. What's the controversy here?
MacArthur gives no pages numbers and the words he uses "develop" "effective" "theology" etc haven't helped me search for and find a location in my electronic copy. So I don't know what to say other than MacArthur at best uncharitably misread Patrick. MacArthur can clarify if he likes. I know Darrin personally and have the book, and there's no way he said "develop your own theology" as MacArthur means it.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 01/20/2011 at 10:19 PM
You know, when he called Driscoll out about language I seem to remember lots of people calling for Driscoll to be humble and listen to MacArthur, repent, etc.
I guess we'll find out if that standard applies only to others or to everyone.
Posted by: Matthew Johnson | 01/20/2011 at 10:36 PM
Unfortunately, it seems like the guy is creating his own little island to camp out and die on alone. What a shame.
Posted by: Joe | 01/20/2011 at 10:42 PM
On page 67, Patrick writes about what it takes to be an effective church planter/pastor. There is nothing there about developing one's own theology though. I searched key words on amazon.com and found nothing. If something looked close I would have gotten my hard copy and read.
It is also interesting that the men who endorsed this book are not theological light-weights and it seems they would have caught something like this.
Posted by: Mark | 01/20/2011 at 11:17 PM
MacArthur loves to criticize, and seems to favor attacking people over positions. He has done this consistently and it is the reason I stopped reading or listening to anything he says.
Posted by: Mike | 01/20/2011 at 11:57 PM
Perhaps the most ignorant thing I've heard MacArthur say. That's what happens when you're fed lines and ideas by people under you with agendas and axes to grind. It's the very reason I quit reading Phil Johnson.
Sad.
Posted by: Big Chris | 01/21/2011 at 12:12 AM
A ministry called "Grace to you." Ironic.
Posted by: Amanda | 01/21/2011 at 12:15 AM
Blogs love to criticize too. As do commentators on blogs. As do I. We could all relax about this public rebuke thing. I think Scripture has a purpose for public rebuke in Titus and I don't believe these comments have anything to do with that purpose.
Posted by: Andrew Noble | 01/21/2011 at 12:17 AM
It seems to me he's just (ab)using Darrin to make his own statement.
Posted by: Buyaah | 01/21/2011 at 12:25 AM
Not surprising. Just read his book "Charismatic Chaos" to get a taste of his general methodology. I'm not a charismatic, and I was even a cessationist when I read it. Even under those conditions, it was an embarrassing tome. In reality, the hyperbole and poor exegesis were probably the first prodding that I had to move away from the cessationist position.
MacArthur and his group (e.g., everyone over at Pyromaniacs) are too prone to hyperbole, mocking, and a general susceptibility to the idea that because the choir to whom they preach applaud them, they must be correct.
Posted by: E.G. | 01/21/2011 at 12:26 AM
I agree Steve. I can't find Darrin saying that anywhere in the book as well. In my opinion MacArthur was right in calling out Driscoll a couple years ago but this time (as much as I love him) he's in the wrong.
Posted by: Cory Lamb | 01/21/2011 at 12:43 AM
I find it curious and bewildering how many people continue to defer to MacArthur because they agree with his theology and/or enjoy his preaching despite his consistently uncharitable tone. His mischaracterization of Darrin and his writing merits attention and appropriate response, and he's been doing this to others publicly for years. I've read things he's written and said that, had they come from someone of lesser public stature (or of another theological stripe), would have been widely considered arrogant, inaccurate, unfair, and unloving. Instead he seems to enjoy a certain insulation for his behavior until and unless he sets his sights on someone in our general circle.
Steve, this is not directed at you personally. I make no assumptions about your impressions of MacArthur in more recent years beyond what you've shared here. This just highlights an ongoing point of confusion for me. It's simply befuddling that a man who regularly belittles and dismisses those with whom he disagrees is held in such high esteem by so many I would otherwise expect to stand against that sort of behavior. I completely agree with your statement ("The gospel of grace needs men of courage to stand up and speak when injustice is done.") and frankly wonder why it hasn't happened regularly for years.
I certainly don't hate John MacArthur, and I'm not asking for others to do to him as he has done to others. I've just been surprised that there have been so few of these sorts of moments when he is taken to task for a language and attitude that seems to completely miss the point Jesus makes in Mark 9:38-41 (among others).
Posted by: thad | 01/21/2011 at 01:02 AM
If one takes the critique as a general critique of what Driscoll refers to as a "multi-perspectival" approach to theology: where we glean the good of all traditions, etc. (taken from Death by Love). Not to be confused with Fairchild's take on tri-perspectivalism, and certainly not to be confused with John Frame's perspectivalism (although, Driscoll relies heavily on both).
Now I would argue that this critique only holds value if coming from someone in the Reformed Confessional camp (i.e. Mike Horton, Kevin Vanhoozer) - not from someone who doesn't necessarily hold to a long standing tradition based theology (as Johnny Mac obviously doesn't). The reason: they hold to a static, non-multi-perspectival (as defined above) view of theology.
With the validity or value of such a critique set aside, we can at surely agree that JMac is at least partially guilty of that to which he accuses Patrick.
Posted by: matt | 01/21/2011 at 01:11 AM
I've got the John Mac Arthur Study Bible! Does he have a clothing line of suits? I don't want to have my own style. I want to be just like him so he won't take a shot at me either.
Posted by: Greg | 01/21/2011 at 06:32 AM
What is so striking to me over the past few years is the way that MacArthur and John Piper have handled young an developing pastors. Instead of attacking people publicly from his own camp over misunderstandings and secondary issues, John Piper invests in these younger pastors.
I'm thinking particularly about how each man has handled their feelings for Mark Driscoll. While Piper likely agreed with much of what MacArthur said at the time (or at least had similar concerns) he went directly to Driscoll, not the public.
I wonder which one will have the deeper impact in the lives of the next generation of leaders.
Posted by: Caleb Land | 01/21/2011 at 07:06 AM
John Macarthur criticizing your book is great publicity. Thats all I have to say. Never heard of this book until now.
Posted by: Rob w | 01/21/2011 at 07:13 AM
"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." Phil. 2:12-13
Posted by: Aaron | 01/21/2011 at 07:28 AM
The irony of this podcast is that no more than 5 minutes after his statements on Patrick, MacArthur admits that he himself, over the years, has "developed his own theology." Though he didn't put it in those words exactly, his meaning is clear.
Posted by: Joel | 01/21/2011 at 07:38 AM
I attended a meeting Thursday morning (1/20) for the Global Day of Prayer. The individual leading that session said, and I quote - "We have different theologies, different denominations, different music, etc. etc.
I hope that evangelical leaders do not have "different theologies" as to the core issues of classical Christian Theism; Deity of Christ, Sovereignty of God, etc. My experience as a Pastor and consultant tells me that in fact there is a serious departure from orthodoxy.
I wrote a paper specifically designed to address such conflict. Happy to send this to anyone who makes the request. Ask for "Speaking TRUTH in Love. 803 776 5282 or [email protected]
Posted by: Tom Fillinger | 01/21/2011 at 07:38 AM
Great point. I wonder if part of the reason for his uncharitable tone not being addressed is simply that the Church has largely ignored the supremacy of Agape Love in the Christian faith.
We've spoken with venom against the world for so long, and in politics, it's perfectly normal to speak venomously toward people we regard as heretics, and then finally, by extension, toward our brothers.
There's a fine line between brother & heretic.
Posted by: Jesse Phillips | 01/21/2011 at 08:09 AM
It really sounds as if JM only reads books in order to find things he does not like, rather than read them in entirety. Confine your criticisms to actually examinations of a text JM not pithy jabs in an interview without any real dialogue!
Posted by: Bryan | 01/21/2011 at 08:10 AM
MacArthur is a great Bible teacher, no doubt.
With a variety of denominations and individuals, he has forgotten that line (my paraphrase): "they will know us by our love for each other". Pretty sure there's other scripture about going to a wayward brother with an other witness and lovingly restoring him...unfortunately, that process garners little PR and fewer followers...
Posted by: Jody Sneed | 01/21/2011 at 08:17 AM
Like you I very much appreciated John MacArthur in my early christian years. His passion for truth was infectious and I learned much from him.
As I grew in my faith and went to Bible College and Seminary I began to have some concerns about the way he interacted with others.
I find it to be very sad the way he throws good men under the bus because he does not see things in the same way as others. I think he discredits himself with the way he treats others.
Posted by: Steve Erickson | 01/21/2011 at 08:19 AM
I want to criticize you so bad right now.
Posted by: Joe | 01/21/2011 at 08:35 AM
I've been noticing this for the past few years. I grew up loving MacArthur--and it was his preaching that God called me into the preaching ministry. I remembered him responding to other trends, but I'd always hear from him first.
Recently, I've been reading up on other ministries, then hearing MacArthur respond to them and he presents a caricature and many in his ministry are doing the same thing. I appreciate his convictions, but more and more its been leaving a bad taste in my mouth. I wish I could see him interact with others, like I saw him on Larry King where he would expose other minister's true feelings on the gospel and the Word.
Posted by: Matthew Perry | 01/21/2011 at 08:40 AM
By the way, I read Church Planter last fall. Marvelous book. I pastor an established church (in its 226th year) and found great value in being solid as both a man and in your message. It's as orthodox as possible.
Posted by: Matthew Perry | 01/21/2011 at 08:43 AM
As stated, it's a frightening statement... agree with Johnny Mac. Patrick should have communicated more clearly, or the editor should have caught it. We are most certainly responsible for the impact of our words, so we need to use them responsibly.
Posted by: Matt Stephens | 01/21/2011 at 08:45 AM
sadly, the context of this whole discussion was a lengthy explanation of why MacArthur has never been wrong...
[sigh] this kind of stuff makes me want to sell all his books.
Posted by: Daverudd | 01/21/2011 at 08:58 AM
Matt, I'd tend to agree if Patrick had actually written something that even closely resembled what MacArthur is critiquing.
Posted by: Aaron Armstrong | 01/21/2011 at 09:08 AM
Ha. Brilliant.
Posted by: Chris Poblete | 01/21/2011 at 09:18 AM
This is off topic but it definitely applies. Why doesn't someone call out a famous Bible teacher who is renowned for conservative theology after he gets a hair transplant? I am serious here, John had a hair transplant a few years ago and frankly I find it pretty vain for a man who exemplifies such maturity and security in Christ. I realize that it his choice and that it is not forbidden Biblically but it still seems strange for someone like him to spend thousands on his hair.
Am I being as unfair as John was with Darrin?
Posted by: KWS | 01/21/2011 at 09:40 AM
“One of the common errors of young men who surrender to ministry is to simply adopt the model of a church that they have experienced or idolized.”
Later on the same page...
“The man…is thoughtful about his own philosophy of ministry, his own ministry style, his own theological beliefs, his own unique gifts, abilities, and desires. In short, there is uniqueness to the way he wants to do ministry.”
Posted by: Jesse | 01/21/2011 at 09:51 AM
I don't want to be the tone police on a blog that this is my first time to, but it is sort of funny to see how many people write "MacArthur is so uncharitable, so that is why I never read anything he says." Those kind of quotes are ironic on like three levels.
Posted by: Jesse | 01/21/2011 at 10:02 AM
Good point!
Posted by: Aaron Crossley | 01/21/2011 at 10:15 AM
Matt:
Read Darrin's book and listened to JMac's comments directly. I know Darrin personally and this is just a weird comment from JMac. Darrin never said develop you OWN theology. Develop and devise (which Phil Johnson uses later in the interview) are two different things. Develop doesn't mean create from scratch -- that is an egregious overstatement.
What JMac describes before and after his comments about Darrin's book is exactly what Darrin is getting at -- read Scripture, go to school, read books (Darrin has a D.Min. from Covenant, btw). And when you do those things, your theology will "develop" every day. Things become clearer, more defined, and, sometimes things change. That's called development...
There is no need for anyone (editors, Darrin, etc.) to have caught or to change the language b/c the language is perfectly fine the way it is. They got this one wrong. They should focus their attention on stuff that deserves more correction (later, JMac talks about the "policing" he and Phil Johnson feel like they need to do in responding to false doctrines today). This ain't it...
Posted by: brad | 01/21/2011 at 10:19 AM
Brad, solid comment. That's my position and why I said to start with 27 minutes left for context. JMac says he listened to Van Til and read Puritans and all that. That IS what it means to "develop your own theology" or whatever Darrin actually said. MacArthur basically said "this is what I did" and then blasts Darrin for saying and encouraging the same thing.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 01/21/2011 at 10:26 AM
If a non-existent quote about developing a theology caused this much of a stink, he's going to have a stroke when he reads Desiring God.
Posted by: Matthew Johnson | 01/21/2011 at 10:34 AM
As someone mentioned earlier, I have always found it ironic that JM calls his ministry "Grace To You"--I've dismissed him for years because of this type of m.o. He doesn't deserve a pass because he's a "great teacher" or his solid orthodoxy, etc. If he does not emit the persona and character of the loving, humble, Jesus he's not worth listening to. Another example of the truth that you can preach beyond your character but you can't disciple beyond your character. Agree with you totally Steve...he should be called out and called out by the strongest voices.
Posted by: Lance Ford | 01/21/2011 at 10:44 AM
Steve,
Whether we "develop" our own theology from reading the Puritans, Calvin, or any more contemporary author like Keller or Piper, do you think we all run the risk of idolizing and creating of these figures or eras something of a celebrity culture?
I know it is not directly related to MacArthur's mis-step, but it seems to me the error is on both ends of the issue. MacArthur, and others, can not fill the expectations their "disciples" have for them. And, those who follow seem more often than not to give up their "developing" theology to whatever said "mentor" they determine "speaks for them."
It is a wonder this is not a more common occurrence.
On another note, do you think we all need something of a "foil" for our own theological projects. Otherwise, we tend to think we "have" the truth, even owning the "once for all delivered to the saints" kind of position. And, since we have competing strands in the Christian tradition we tend to spend more time defending against those with whom we disagree rather than thinking all the way down to our won developing theologies.
Thanks for the pointer to this incident. Personally, I once found MacArthur to be authoritative then through a long, ongoing process, believe him to inhabit quite a narrow space on the theological landscape that tends to act as arbiter of who is right and who is wrong without owning one's attendant weaknesses.
Posted by: Todd Littleton | 01/21/2011 at 10:49 AM
All I can say is, "Aw man!" I hope that this gets resolved quickly. I think MacArthur made a mistake here. If he apologizes, it will be a great show of humility and it will work to promote Darrin's book that is so helpful to church planters.
Posted by: Brad Williams | 01/21/2011 at 11:06 AM
Todd, I don't think you and I are quite in the same theology place. Safe to say, right? But I think I get where you are going and I do agree in general with you that there is danger all around of a kind of idolatry, or at least unhealthy narrowness.
I think Keller is good on this. He said something like, -- If you read one book you are a clone. If you read two books you are confused. If you read ten books you have your own voice. And if you read one hundred books you grow wise. -- I think that's a good way to look at it.
Did I even adequately respond to your comment? :)
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 01/21/2011 at 11:31 AM
Assuming that MacArthur misrepresented Patrick's statements, when does that misrepresentation become an "uncharitable misrepresentation"?
Posted by: Joseph | 01/21/2011 at 11:32 AM
EG, couldn't agree more. It was this book and his personal attacks on Bill Bright that really turned me off. We often over look things until it hits one we call our own. I'm all for rigorous debate on theology, but I think we can do it with out attacking personally.
Posted by: Mike | 01/21/2011 at 11:32 AM
Joseph, I don't think MacArthur just misspoke or got a bit wrong with all good intent otherwise. This is egregious. To state something like this publicly you better know what you are talking about. I think it goes beyond mere misrepresentation to also being uncharitable.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 01/21/2011 at 11:38 AM
Jesse, I stopped reading anything he says after listening to him and reading several of his books. I happened to see a tweet from Ed Stetaer about this and thought I'd chime in. JMac preaches grace, but seems very stingy when it comes to extending it to those he disagrees with in the Christian community.
Posted by: Mike | 01/21/2011 at 11:38 AM
Caleb, well said!!
Posted by: Mike | 01/21/2011 at 11:41 AM
Growing up in a decidedly fundamentalist stream I am well acquainted with their tactics. Their big cause seems to be the rebuke of perceived improper methodology or theology in other ministries or pastors. Essential to their whole system is the vilification of other Christian leaders who do not adhere to their style of ministry or ecclesiastical allegiances.
So while McArthur may be a godly man and leader he has a propensity to openly criticize rather than quietly dialogue. This is simply the predisposition of the fundamentalist psyche. That way they can point at others in contrast to themselves and say we are right they are wrong. I bear no ill will to John MacArthur or any other fundamentalist leader but I wish they would stop with divisive labels and critiques and instead like John Piper and other older men make a practice of influencing and mentoring younger emerging leaders rather than running them down publicly.
Posted by: Gabriel Spence | 01/21/2011 at 11:43 AM
Steve, you could hear the contempt in his words. Any casual listener to what JM said would identify his tone (not to mention his words) as uncharitable -- especially in the context of Christian community. Thanks for bringing attention to this. If it wasn't for your post and Stezers tweet, I wouldn't have known.
Posted by: Mike | 01/21/2011 at 11:47 AM
I was pointed to this blog via a friend's twitter feed. I have not read Patrick's book. I have no connection with Dr. MacArthur or Mr. Patrick. I am a two-time alumni of Southern Seminary and have a great deal of respect for Dr. Mohler, along with the other endorsers. I don't think they would give their endorsement to a book lightly. So even though I have not read the book, I am inclined to believe it is trustworthy and helpful for the church.
At the same time, while it is obvious that several of you have taken offense to MacArthur's words, I do not find the discussion being had here to be very helpful. In fact, it seems to me more destructive than anything I heard in the entire MacArthur interview.
I would be interested in further explanation, no doubt, but I can see how the statement about developing your own theology could be viewed as very dangerous if MacArthur truly thought that was what Patrick was suggesting. He would be fully justified and would have my support in warning against such a statment were it accurate. We all speak/write at times meaning one thing, but it is interpreted another way. Are any of you pastors who have made the mistake of dealing with a weighty/contentious issue via email? Maybe I'm the only one. But it happens. Perhaps something was lost in translation.
Rather than a call to "rip this apart" or to say that MacArthur should be ashamed or a lot of the other comments being made here, perhaps we should, in our own humility (which many of you seem to believe MacArthur lacks) endeavor to approach both Dr. MacArthur and Mr. Patrick and ask for clarification. An open dialogue for the two of them to discuss this issue would be something truly helpful, and could serve for the mutual edification of all involved.
I know some of you know Mr. Patrick personally, and I can understand your desire to defend him. It is a testimony to your loyal friendship. However, I think you might be a bit hasty in the casting of stones. Let us be careful with our words and strive to find the truth from both ends.
Posted by: Eric | 01/21/2011 at 11:55 AM
And let's not forget that there are a lot of people out there doing exactly what MacArthur is opposing. They make up their own theology as they go. The true gospel, then, is no longer proclaimed and the church suffers greatly.
Posted by: Eric | 01/21/2011 at 12:01 PM
Yes. The statement came from John, but Phil is his researcher/writer & seems to be the instigator. I find both men often come across as self-righteous, judgemental, & jumping to conclusions without considering context.
Posted by: ross | 01/21/2011 at 12:02 PM
Thanks for pointing this out Steve. Too much to say in a blog comment box so I thought out loud here: http://is.gd/M6Xasa
Posted by: Brent Thomas | 01/21/2011 at 12:02 PM
For the record, "rip this apart" means to dismantle his accusations and misrepresentations and bring truth and clarity to the issue. Several blogs have picked this up and folks are doing just that. And for the most part are doing it thoughtfully.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 01/21/2011 at 12:04 PM
Thanks Mike. It is just funny to me that people critique him for being publicly divisive, and they do that publicly. And for being uncharitable, while mocking his hair.
Speaking of context, the quote is on page 37. Which, by the way, is one of the most convoluted arguments about a call to pastoral ministry that I have ever read. If you read page 36-38 and think it is clear, I would be surprised. One thing it is clear about is you need to have your own theology, and "the biggest mistake" a pastor can make is using the theology/phil. of min that he was taught.
Posted by: Jesse | 01/21/2011 at 12:26 PM
If "develop" meant "invent", then MacArthur is absolutely correct in saying what he did. That kind of statement would be something only Rick Warren could say. But if he miss-understood what the guy meant by "develop your own" then you have no right to publicly criticize this silly mistake.
Posted by: Daniel | 01/21/2011 at 12:32 PM
own theology???? sounds like a "MacArthur Study Bible"
Posted by: Shane Waldrop | 01/21/2011 at 12:35 PM
Sure Shane, but a the study Bible develops its theology from the Bible. Pages 36-38 of the Patrick book say that you should develop your own "unique" style/philosphy of ministry and theology from your unique gifts, "head confirmation," etc. It is sort of the opposite of "what you have heard from me entrust to faithful men," and is instead "what you heard from faithful men, don't trust." At least that is how I read it.
Posted by: Jesse Johnson | 01/21/2011 at 12:56 PM
I'm not sure if this has already been posted. But it seems that MacArthur does develop his own theology (of cause he does, I think everyone does over time)
http://www.gty.org/Resources/Articles/A235_Reexamining-the-Eternal-Sonship-of-Christ
Posted by: Andrew | 01/21/2011 at 04:14 PM
I honestly be very happy if something positive came out of this: http://twitter.com/darrinpatrick/
Posted by: Matthew Johnson | 01/21/2011 at 04:39 PM
FWIW, here are JMac's comments: http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110121 (not exactly an apology)
Posted by: bmax | 01/21/2011 at 06:26 PM
*I love JMac.
*JMac was wrong.
*JMac has been wrong like this before.
*JMac needs to be called out.
*We should still love JMac.
*Don't throw away him or his books.
*Those who believe in grace - should have some. That goes for everybody including myself.
Posted by: Icharlie1980.wordpress.com | 01/21/2011 at 06:57 PM
MacArthur's clarification/addendum
http://www.gty.org/Blog/B11121
Posted by: Noah | 01/21/2011 at 07:41 PM
Here is the response to your post by Dr. MacArthur
http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110121
Posted by: Jon | 01/21/2011 at 08:19 PM
Steve,
I am not sure what "theology place" you have in mind for me. Maybe I am a bit more eclectic - thinking Keller's reading 100 books. Or, something like your diverse musical flare. I would not want those distinctions to distract from your very specific post nor detract from my hope-filled attempt to suggest that no matter where one positions himself/herself on the theological spectrum we are all prone to elevate a theological formulation to the place MacArthur illustrates is prone to hubristic criticisms. And, that the language of Zion we use to butress our position (e.g. "faith once for all delivered to the saints") only serves to assume a posture above another whom we refuse to learn with or from that just may be a healthy foil for our own finitude. In the story you draw our attention to I believe Patrick is a healthy foil to MacArhur's often narrow vision that he would impose on the rest of us. Even you who doubtless have me in mind somewhere to your left. Which may or may not be true. We have never ventured down that road.
Peace.
Todd
Posted by: Todd | 01/21/2011 at 09:17 PM
Todd, you took my comment as generally agreeing with you, right? That's how I meant it. :)
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 01/21/2011 at 10:55 PM
All MacArthur did, as far as I can tell, is entrench himself and make further argument based on his misreading of Patrick.
Posted by: Steve McCoy | 01/21/2011 at 11:36 PM
I work for The Journey and was Darrin's assistant for several years. He is like a brother to me! The whole thing just makes me sad. Last time I checked we are fighting a battle everyday to proclaim Christ to a world that increasingly hates Him because of things just like this. We've moved from shooting our own wounded to shooting our own soldiers. No wonder the world doesn't want anything to do with Jesus....
Posted by: kam | 01/22/2011 at 12:32 AM
I have never had much respect for MacArthur because he is a dispensationalist. Dispensationalism was invented by John Nelson Darby in the 1830s. MacArthur has chosen to follow "some guy who was developing his own theology."
Posted by: Jeff | 01/22/2011 at 07:18 AM
Yes, Steve I got that. It was the nuanced rply that prompted my clarification. ;)
Posted by: Todd | 01/22/2011 at 12:06 PM
I have never read or heard Bro. Patrick speak. But I can say when I think of courageous, holy men of God who have dedicated their entire lives to the exposition of the Word of God and sharing graciously of that ministry, I may be alone in these comments but I am thankful unto our Lord for John MacArthur.
Posted by: Tom Jefferson | 01/22/2011 at 04:49 PM
Westminster Larger Cathecism:
Question 123: Which is the fifth commandment?
Answer: The fifth commandment is, Honor thy father and thy mother; that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God gives thee.
Question 124: Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?
Answer: By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts..."
Posted by: Jay | 01/23/2011 at 02:52 PM
John posted a response/clarification here http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110121_Radical-Individualism-A-Good-Trait-for-Young-Pastors.
I think it's interesting that many people are running to Darrin's defense because they know him and like him. At the same time, they are also quick to criticize MacArthur in the same breath. If you read the section in question, it seems understandable how someone unfamiliar with Darrin's teaching could be tripped up. I like Darrin and his teaching, but we also have to understand that many people will read his book without the context of knowing where he's coming from.
It seems that many here are quick to dismiss MacArthur because they've read all his books and didn't like some of the things he said. Isn't that what he was saying about Patrick's book? Not that he's a heretic, but that we need to guard against finding our own theology if it's not in line with orthodox Christianty.
I wonder if the backlash would have been the same if Piper or Keller had criticized or questioned something that Darrin had said?
Posted by: Kevin | 01/24/2011 at 02:47 PM
I think way too many people have no theology at all. They have a collection of verses, rules, traditions, etc. But they have no overall theology that ties it all together.
Macarthur would rather that people just bought his study Bible and subscribed to his own theology (complete with anti-charismatic bias; and other, less obvious bias).
Watching Macarthur grow old is depressing.
Posted by: Lewgraff | 01/25/2011 at 10:01 AM
MacArthur respond http://www.gty.org/Blog/B110121
I don't think he gets what Patrick is saying at all. Patrick seems to just want young pastors to no blindly follow others but to use a statement from what MaArthur prides himself on and to be good bereans. The context that MacArthur gives above even gives that impression. He seemed to have the problem with the word unique but what individual has a theology that is not unique to themselves especially in tone and expression.
This critique really does seem to be coming from Macarthur's modernistic background. I think the most disappointing thing is that he isn't aware of how this affects his reading of people who don't think like him.
Posted by: Hunter Goff | 01/25/2011 at 10:17 AM
What's really depressing is watching young bans dishonor a man who has been doing ministry longer than their grandparents have been alive. You guys are hot on the biblical case for female submission, but completely discredit yourselves the way you go after Godly, wise (yet, fallible) men like MacArthur.
That, gentlemen, is depressing.
Posted by: Jackson | 01/25/2011 at 01:55 PM
Darrin Patrick showing a lot more grace than the majority of comments on this site and others...
Posted by: Randy | 01/25/2011 at 11:27 PM
Funny how many of you are doing to JM (in the comments here) the exact thing you are criticizing him for doing. Interesting. Nice to see though that your boy Darrin responded to JM in a completely different manner than you all did.
Posted by: Gary Rogers | 01/26/2011 at 01:13 PM
I'm only halfway through the book but the only thing I've seen so far is something along the lines of saying something about developing your own philosophy of ministry. Many seminaries in the U.S. will have you do that very thing. Draw up a written document with your thoughts on what exactly ministry is and how you should go about it. That may not be what MacArthur is referring to, but I've not disagreed with Patrick so far on anything in the book up to this point.
Posted by: Matt | 01/31/2011 at 09:53 PM
I agree wholeheartedly, Caleb. Piper handled the Driscoll situation just as an elder pastor should and Driscoll has become all the better a leader and pastor for it. Instead of just blasting him, Piper and Sproul took him under their mentorship and confronted him in a graceful manner and Driscoll humbly accepted. To my knowledge, MacArthur offered no guidance, only criticism. I agree with so much of his theology, but he's got to work on the love part of being a pastor.
Posted by: Matt | 01/31/2011 at 10:02 PM
Interesting post. Can you please elaborate on what your qualifications and training for ministry are? The assessments you make are they based on Exegetical of which you speak or Hyperbole? Can you be more specific, like an example of which text violates an exegetical control?
Posted by: Steve | 02/08/2011 at 02:27 PM