Overstatements & Theological Reductionism: Fundamentalists on Piper & MacArthur

Another “heated” discussion has arisen on Sharper Iron over a perceived inconsistency between John MacArthur’s recent criticism’s of Mark Driscoll and a promotinal video clip for a teen conference held at John’s very own church. Like most SI discussions, there is an abundance of chaff mixed in with the wheat, so to speak. Yet there are valid points of discussion being raised—to the degree that Phil Johnson has jumped into the discussion with only a matchbox rather than a Pyromaniacs blowtorch.

Ah, but there are overstatements too. Many of them jumped off the page. Some made me wince, others made me laugh, most made me shake my head in disbelief. I commented about them on pg. 22 of that thread (which is scheduled to close at noon today), and I thought I would be lazy and copy those comments here. Well, not merely lazy, because these comments discuss a topic I plan to bring up in the future “theological reductionism” [ironically, I heard that term in a recent Mark Driscoll sermon, the first one I’ve heard]. So without further ado, let me paste my comments here below.

____________________________________________

This thread certainly has some worthwhile discussion. But it also has its fair share of overstatements. I want to look at the overstatements which I see stemming from a theological reductionism. That is a fancy sounding term to describe the oversimplifying of things. Fundamentalists at the very least are prone to such a fault.

Biblical separation for Biblical reasons requires Biblical discernment. There really is no “one-size-fits-all” approach. Oh, but such an approach is far easier, and thus far more appealing. Hence, reductionism.

Consider the following overstatements found in this thread, and then we will look at some clearly wrongheaded conclusions which follow such oversimplification.

Re: John Piper

“Piper endorses Driscoll” “Piper endorses ECM”

It has been mentioned before that Piper had Driscoll speak because he wanted a theologically conservative, yet credible witness to the distrubing trend of ECM. The whole conference was in large part a Biblically based response to the Emerging Church Movement. Driscoll was invited to speak because he knew the movement, and because he is very conservative in his theology while still being very missiological in his evangelism and philosophy. In some respects having Driscoll as a speaker was a statement re: ECM that you can be missiologically minded without being loose theologically. Certainly Piper does not unequivocally endores Driscoll. And obviously he does not endorse ECM.

“Piper now uses rap for worship” “Piper…make(s) allowance for rap music as worship”

This is totally wrong! I am a member at Piper’s church and let me emphasize Piper does not “use” rap for worship. I explained this in a comment on another thread, and you can go there (see my first point) to read the explanation. Needless to say this was merely a kind gesture and not a methodolical strategy on Piper’s part.

“[Piper] will not separate from the Baptist General Conference who have endorsed open theism and continuously endorses practices that are contrary to scripture in emphasis”

This makes it seem as if Piper is just glibly along for the denominational ride. That is so not true! Piper has been a leader in trying to purge open theism from the BGC. He has constantly been a prophetic voice to the denomination, and no doubt has influenced many churches within it. He is in the quandry earlier fundamentalists were in. They were standing for truth in their denominations, but at some point eventually saw the need to abandon them. Remaining in the BGC and fighting for the truth is a totally different reality from what is expressed in this sentence.

“He taught at Bethel College when all sorts of “left wing” Evangelical teaching and practice was occurring and felt comfortable with it.”

This also assumes too much. Are you really sure he was “comfortable” with it? Or could he not have been fighting for Bethel College’s preservation?

Re: John MacArthur

“I talked to a pastor who went to a MacArthur meeting in Michigan. Right before MacArthur stood to preach on the holiness of God, an ensemble from his Master’s College publically swayed to the seductive rhythm of their contemporary music.”

Second hand info about a “public swaying” to music! Are we going to Biblically separate from someone based on how so-and-so felt when he heard the MC ensemble perform?

“In an interview with Mark Dever, MacArthur, was asked if he was a ‘Dispensationalist.’ There was hesitation and then he said; ‘well, in the sense that I believe there is a future Kingdom for Israel.’ He was then asked if he was Reformed and without hesitation MacArhtur said ‘Yes!’ What he indicated is that he may not be Dispensationalist but what is called “Historic Premillenial. That plus his view against the two natures in the Christian should make him examine whether he can sign the IFCA statement of faith. Perhaps he should consider dropping his membership in that organization.”

This statement also is reading motives into MacArthur’s “hesitation”. It overstates the case and concludes from this interview that MacArthur is a weak Dispensationalist. (By the way, should fundamentalists be separating over dispensationalism? I for one don’t think so.)

Re: both

“[They] are wrong in their practice of separation. Separation is a Bible doctrine. This means they are off-base doctrinally on separation. Music is a doctrinal issue and their music is wrong.”

Anyone familiar with SI knows that the music issue is a complicated subject. But we can conveniently simplify it into “their music is wrong” and an implied “we should separate from them”. Again, both Piper and MacArthur practice separation. They differ on specific applications of it between themselves and especially with fundamentalists, but they still are separating. Separation is a difficult topic with much “gray matter”, yet we can simply say they are “wrong in their practice of separation”.

These kinds of overstatements and oversimplified conclusions, lead people into making some of the following extreme statements.

“Why don’t you all take the only rational view and stop buying and reading the books and CDs of a man that says one thing and does the other?”

Again, we have been reminded in this thread that we all are prone to saying one thing and doing another. And certainly examples of this could be given for other “approved” authors. Simply ignoring MacArthur and Piper seems to be far less than a Christian approach to this. It is an overreaction based on an oversimplification of the facts involved. Who needs discernment? Just chuck all books by MacArthur or Piper!

This last quote comes from the comment thread on the post that was linked to at the start of this SI thread. On that blog someone simply said:

“MacArthur is a hypocrite who has an electric guitar shaped beam in his own eye.”

I hope everyone here agrees that such a statement is not only overstated, but it is patently unkind. It is a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation of John MacArthur. But it makes life easy. Just paint your opponents the darkest shade of black you can–that’ll make you look white on any account.

Hopefully, we can try to avoid such overstatements and oversimplifications–theological reductionism. I know even as I type this that I can easily become guilty of this myself, in several different directions at once even! May God help us think Biblically and calmly concerning these matters. We need to think hard, but let us think, not avoid thinking.

14 thoughts on “Overstatements & Theological Reductionism: Fundamentalists on Piper & MacArthur

  1. It sounds like there’s a lot of love floating through that particular thread. It is good to disagree and voice opinions (that is what forums and blogs are for), but it sounds like there are more people just bashing and doing everything but name calling. Its amazing what people will say about other people.

    You are right about how people will oversimplify a debate that rages and simply say, “You are wrong…I am right!”

  2. Right on the money! Thanks, Bob, for that wonderful comment! I read about 11 or 12 pages of that “stuff” before I couldn’t take it any more. You picked up on exactly the same comments that got me fired up. I am almost to the point where any discussion on “worldly music” will put me over the edge. It is easier just to remove myself from the discussion due to the fact that most are not willing to produce any Scripture that is on point.

    By the way, why did this discussion jump so quickly to music? In fact, the blog that SI linked to to start the discussion almost made music its main point from the beginning. Can’t we talk about vulgarity in the pulpit without getting into a music discussion? Obviously not!

    Piper & MacArthur are worldly compromisers just because they don’t agree with fundamentalism’s view on “godly music”. Throw out their books. Don’t go to their conferences. Just sit down and talk only with those with whom you totally agree. That way you will never have to worry about biblically defending your positions.

    There was some good points made from both sides, but unfortunately any good discussion was sidetracked and hijacked by the same old tired musical arguements.

  3. Boy Howdy!!! (That’s an exclamation for those of you north of the Red River)

    We laugh lest we cry!

    Oh, the memories . . .

    I recall during the Bush-Gore presidential race, hearing all of Gore’s playing fast and loose with the truth, and noticing how much my then-pastor sounded like him.

    I remember hearing him lump MacArthur in with mega-church “libs” (not his exact words, I’m just oversimplifying because I don’t recall his actual words) like Rick Warren!!!

    John Mac Arthur and Rick Warren?
    As in “birds of a feather?”
    Somebody’s not paying close enough attention to something.

    I guess being accurate when you talk about others from the pulpit requires too much “scholarship” that takes away from one’s “soul-winnin'”

    Oh my, I must sound like those I’m helping you criticize. Another misadventure under my belt!

    🙂

  4. Hey Bob, Overstatement. Yes. What I wrote was a blog, not evidence as basis of separation. Overstatement. I have one part of many about the “swaying.” So, since it was a pastor friend with whom I don’t fellowship and who doesn’t have a problem with swaying, I should disbelieve it? My main point for even giving that second anecdote was the holiness of God/seductive swaying connection, blurring the lines, not proof for separation. Should we bothered by the profaning of the sacred? (By the way, a good argument wouldn’t be: I was in the BJU book store and heard “Rites of Spring” or anything like that) I had lunch with a new convert today and asked him unbiased what he thought of when I said this: dimly lighted room, spotlights on a platform, trap set and electric guitar set up. He said: drugs and a night club. That setting does not appeal to godliness.

    Just thinking about overstatement.

  5. Pastor Brandenburg,

    I am glad that the anecdote in question would not be the sole basis for separation. But I can see how some would take it and run with it.

    Barber shop quartets often “sway”, and without seeing it first hand, it would be hard to know how to take a description of “swaying”. Marching bands sway too. I hope most people would agree that finding fault with “swaying” is a bit too nitpicky.

    Yes, I may have overstated my case, and certainly we should all beware of overstatements. Hopefully, most will agree with the main point of my post—that overstatements are not helpful and they don’t reflect Biblical discernment.

    This recent thread is going to help me try to watch out for overstatement in my own writing and posting, not just to see it in others.

    Blessings in Christ,

    Bob

  6. Nicholas,

    You said: “You are right about how people will oversimplify a debate that rages and simply say, ‘You are wrong…I am right!'”

    I agree. But then we all need to keep this in mind, because it can happen to all of us.

    God bless you richly in Christ,

    Bob

  7. I know I’m just comic relief in this line of posts, but that’s about as seriously as I can take the confident bloviating of fundamentalists on things they seem to know little about, to be generous. But overstatement and reductionism are just two weapons in the fundamentalist’s bag of tricks to preserve their convictions and those of their followers.

    If they spent time considering the other side of the story, they’d learn to respect others.

  8. I stayed out of that thread because it got too messy. I did write a little blurb about it on my blog though. I don’t want to come down too hard on MacArthur or Piper for what would be considered “no-no’s” in Fundyism, but I have to wonder…”what are they thinking?” in my separatist fundamentalist frame of mind, I can’t understand the difference between the night club church set up of Mark Driscoll and the night club set up for a Johnny Mac Youth conference. What makes an Emergent guy wrong for using contemporary rock in his church, but MacArthur is justified for doing it for his youth conference? I just don’t get the evangelical mentality of separation…someone help me understand it!

  9. William,

    They grieve the Spirit in this area, quench the Spirit, and as a result, they don’t see it. Bob, I said “Rites of Spring” was a bad argument, moral equivalency. It is a red herring. And then you give me your own, barbershop and marching bands. What does that have to do with anything? Yes, everything should be judged. I sway when I play basketball and I also sway when I get up quickly and white out. I sway after doing a set of squats. There is swaying and then there is swaying. Not being able to see this, I just sway my head at it.

  10. William,

    I don’t have all the answers for you. And especially if you view contemporary music in general to be worldly and sinful, I could understand your consternation.

    Consider a few things however. Driscoll’s music and set up is very popular today. It is “state of the art” and extremely current. Yet MacArthur’s stuff, from what I can gather from descriptions and the video clip, etc., is not “very popular” or “extremely current”. It is average, run of the mill, contemporary music. I think if you saw the stage and set up for Driscoll and MacArthur, you couldn’t really equate the two. And “night club” probably is innaccurate in describing MacArthur’s stuff. The video was grainy and dark, but I’m not so sure that all lighting is that low and that they really use spotlights and try to create a night club feel.

    And again, the “evangelical mentality of separation” is based on a belief that secondary separation is not taught by Scripture. And the degree and use of contemporary instrumentation is not either. These are judgment calls that individual churches make, and separation would be done on a church by church basis. We may disagree with different churches’ approaches but we don’t necessarily separate from them. There may come a point when we need to.

    I don’t know if this helps, but it is something, nevertheless. Perhaps other readers could pipe in here.

    Thanks for expressing your concerns, Will.

    God bless you in your pursuit of truth,

    Bob

  11. Let’s see, thirty years ago was my first bashing I received from by good Fundy Baptist pastors because I mention that I enjoyed the preaching and teaching of John MacArthur. Of course those bashings continue today.

    As Shepherds of the flock that the Lord has given us, we are responsibile to our flock, not John MacArthur, thus as we gleam the teachings of men, we must remember we are accountable ourselves as how we are lead by the Spirit and what we teach to our own flock.

    We all do ministry differently.

    Frances Shaeffer: “Where Scripture speaks we are bound — but God has given us titanic freedoms and we’re aftraid to use them.”

    Fundy are so afraid that they will be compromising the old landmarks if they allow different music, different bible readings, etc into their church. So they bash anyone who allows this freedom to occur in their ministry.
    You know most are good men and gave good churches. Why they want to bash these great men is beyond me.

    Both John’s are responsible for their own church flock. We can choose are reject their viewpoints, its our responsibility.

    Many Fundy reject both John’s theological teaching, thus they reject their viewpoints.
    And they are always throwing out over the top statments about what he believes and does.

    For thirty years I have followed MacArthur with a close eye in his teaching, I have studied right alone side of him, and today, he is still one the the best pastor/teachers in the public eye.

    Charles

Comments are closed.