I had selected John MacArthur for this series with the intention of highlighting someone with whom I would have expected little or no difficulties, so that this series may end, for the time being, on a positive note. That has indeed proven to be the case, so this evaluation will be relatively short.
As with other subjects, MacArthur is a prolific author, so we took a representative sample:
- Hard to Believe [HB]
- The God Who Loves [GWL]
- LThe Truth War [TW]
- A Tale of Two Sons [TTS]
- Twelve Ordinary Men [12O]
- Faith Works [FW]
It turned out that TTS had some bearing on another article for this issue, so we will not be considering it here; it had more problems than these others, in the main because it was entirely based on an incorrect exegetical premise. However, our final evaluation of MacArthur as a source is overwhelmingly positive, and we would unhestitatingly recommend his work with only minor reservations to be spelled out below.
General Positives
We begin, however, with an overview of positive aspects of MacArthur’s work. These works surveyed included pointed critiques of seeker-sensitive churches that compromise; critiques of inclusivism; an emphasis on obedience and self-sacrifice; strong emphasis on evangelism, and accuracy in the Gospel message, as opposed to watered down versions of the Gospel, and critiques of manipulative evangelism techniques which produce shallow converts or non-converts.
MacArthur also stands firm against too-familiar understandings of God, such as those that see Him as a grandfather figure indifferent to sin. One of the more recent volumes, TW, is a pointed critique of the emergent movement and postmodernism, although it is more like a sermon at times than a serious critique. MacArthur also offers a healthy critique of seeker sensitivity efforts (including The Purpose Driven Life), the use of funny stories as substitute for exegesis and Scripture in sermons, and dumbed down sermons “adapted to the lowest common denominator” [TW166]. Obviously all of this rings heartily with our own mission at Tekton.
General Negatives
The influence of Calvinist theology is apparent in several of these works. However, MacArthur did not argue for Calvinism directly in any of these volumes; he merely took the theology for granted. It is also apparent that MacArthur fails to recognize the tension between Calvinist statements about predestination on one hand, and comments like found at TW76, where he says we should fight heresy “in hopes of rescuing the eternal souls of men and women who have been unwittingly ensnared by the trap of devilish deception.” In that respect, however, MacArthur is like many preachers who are Calvinist in their preaching but Arminian in their evangelism.
In addition, though MacArthur says much commendable about too-familiar views of God, he contrarily continues to refer to needing a “personal/intimate relationship” with God. It is not explained in any of these volumes what he means by “personal” or “intimate” though we naturally assume it means something less than the familiar views he criticizes.
The Problems That Are Few
As noted, we found very few mistakes in MacArthur’s works, though some were quite surprising given MacArthur’s strong emphasis on education.
- HB44: MacArthur notes the use of scatological terms by Luther and his contemporary Thomas More; of this he says “Regrettably, such language was used even in some of the theological debates on that time.” Regrettably? Does MacArthur also consider expressions like Malachi 2:3 to be “regrettable” language by God?
- HB45: MacArthur says Jesus picked persons as apostles “with absolutely no influence”: no great scholars, intellects, or philosophers. But what about Matthew and Paul, then? Paul is merely dismissed because he was not one of the Twelve, but he was still an apostle, and this does not set well with MacArthur's premise about "ordinary men". Matthew, who by his record is shown to have been a serious scholar of his time, is explained as someone who had been an outcast, and so turned to studying the Scriptures on his own! This is a contrived explanation; the social background would rather indicate that Matthew started as a scholar, could not find a place to work, and ended up a tax collector as a result.
- HB77: MacArthur refers to a time he debated Deepak Chopra on air: “[H]e wanted to engage me in a battle over New Testament manuscripts. Another time, a Catholic priest tried to debate the meaning of a parable. I let then have their turn – politely, I hope – and then changed the subject back to where it needed to be: the authority of Scripture and the exclusivity of Christ.” His rationale: “Every argument eventually works its way around to those two unflinching, unbreachable truths of the genuine gospel.”
In essence this may be true, but this is not sufficient reason to turn away from the issue. Hopefully MacArthur does not think that things like textual reliability are unimportant questions. He should have at least indicated that answers to such issues were available. Moreover, don’t we depend on the reliability of the texts as well as meaning to determine what those truths are? This statement was surprising from MacArthur.
- HB143: MacArthur says that humility was a rare gift in ancient world, and “neither the Romans nor the Greeks even had a word in their vocabulary for humility.” If this is not a tongue in cheek statement, it is patently in error; humility was one of the considered virtues in the Biblical world, even among pagans. (As far as I can see, MacArthur got this idea from William Barclay, who said more than this, that there was no word for "humility" that did not have "ungenerous and low" overtones. Nevertheless, the claim is in error; for more on this matter, see Pilch and Malina's Handbook of Biblical Social Values, 118-120.)
- HB183: MacArthur uses Mark 16:15 as a proof text, with no recognition of serious textual issues surrounding that verse.
- GWL89: MacArthur declines to seriously answer the question of why a loving God sends anyone to hell: “We simply do not know...God Himself does not reveal to us the answers to those questions.” Many readers, myself included, would regard such a response as a copout. It would have been far better for MacArthur to direct readers to useful philosophical works on the subject.
- TW115: MacArthur wrongly identifies Mormons as Christological Arians. (They would be better called tritheists.)
My greatest difficulty with MacArthur, however, has to do with his use of sources. Given his emphasis on excellence in teaching, one might expect him to break from the usual mold of the Popular Pastors and make use of some serious scholarship. This is especially the case given that at TW205 he recommends the use of commentaries and study aids. However, MacArthur makes almost exclusive use of badly dated commentaries from before the 20th century, or other pastoral authors. The only exception is in HB, where he uses Martin Hengel (though in a chapter that is derived from someone else’s work), and one chapter in FW, where he refers to one scholarly journal article [142] and a few scholarly commentaries. But this chapter is derived from a response he wrote for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society – why doesn’t he use this type of material for his everyday readers as well?
The gravest problem of all is in GWK, where MacArthur recommends Alexander Hislop’s horrible The Two Babylons! Hislop’s work is no more credible than that of Acharya S, and should never be recommended.
Despite these few shortcomings, our verdict remains, as noted, a positive one for MacArthur. Problems are the vast exception, not the rule, and we recommend his work wholeheartedly.