Fred Butler @Fred_Butler Mar 23@triablogue Since when has the Tblog team become a bunch of busy body old church ladies? Why do you care how much a pastor is comped?
ii) Prosperity preachers like Steve Furtick, Creflo Dollar, Robert Tilton, and the Bhagwan Rajneesh (of blessed memory) would deeply appreciate Fred's position.
Fred Butler @Fred_Butler Mar 23@triablogue How is impugning JMac w/ dishonest gain seeking a consistent standard? It's like you all have become old gossipy wags.
Since John MacArthur devotes pages and pages of Strange Fire to attacking prosperity preachers, is Fred accusing MacArthur of being an old gossipy wag as well as a busybody old church lady? Why should he care what they are comped?
Triablogue @triablogue Mar 23@Fred_Butler @TimmmmBates Witness to the world. Processes that are transparent to the world. Beyond question. Are all those in place at GTY?
Fred Butler @Fred_Butler Mar 23@triablogue @TimmmmBates Yes. The very email you deconstruct explained to you that it was. Obviously you aren't satisfied w/ that.
The email only discussed his income from GTY. That means most of MacArthur's sources of revenue remain unaccounted for. That lack of transparent is an obvious problem when he presumes to attack prosperity preachers.
Triablogue @triablogue Mar 23@TimmmmBates @Fred_Butler Hays: Before he published Strange Fire, did MacArthur attempt to contact the charismatics he targets in his book?
Fred Butler @Fred_Butler Mar 23@triablogue @TimmmmBates Oh for goodness sakes. Are you for real? Now you sound like a whiney tone police YRR cry baby.
Since it was a member of MacArthur's inner circle who complained about my failure to contact MacArthur or him before doing my post, that must mean Fred is accusing my correspondent of being a whiney tone police YRR crybaby.
David Kjos @TheThirstyTheo Mar 24@Fred_Butler That @triablogue throws out "nepotism" as though hiring relatives is a priori corrupt reveals a prejudiced disposition.
Fred Butler @Fred_Butler Mar 24@TheThirstyTheo @triablogue It's a joke, really. As if families aren't allowed to minister together.
So when a megachurch operation puts relatives on the payroll (or makes them business partners), that's not nepotism. That's just "ministering together." Once again, prosperty preachers will surely appreciate Fred's euphemism. Perhaps Furtick can hire Fred to be his press secretary.
I think something has gone really wrong when, even rhetorically, you defend the likes of prosperity preachers so that you can justify your dig at a man who has faithfully served Christ's church, and all because he tipped your hobby horse. You guys are better than this.
ReplyDeleteThey're not "defending them" per se, they're arguing that there is parity between his actions and those of prosperity teachers, such that to defend one is to defend another. I can't imagine why it would be wrong to defend prosperity preachers rhetorically to expose double standards. MacArthur may have faithfully served the church, that does not make him above criticism.
DeleteSteve's "defending the likes of prosperity preachers" isn't "rhetorical". Rather, he's arguing that his opponents are being inconsistent and that their reasoning would lead to dubious consequences if applied consistently. What's wrong with illustrating his point by applying his opponents' reasoning to prosperity preachers?
DeleteAnd he hasn't denied that John MacArthur has generally "faithfully served Christ's church". He's objecting to a particular aspect of MacArthur's behavior without denying the good that accompanies what he's criticizing.
You've given us no reason to think Steve has written what he has "all because he tipped your hobby horse".
Actually, it's members of MacArthur's entourage (e.g. Fred Butler, as well as my high-level correspondent) who are implicitly defending prosperity preachers by dismissing the issue of how much a pastor should make.
DeleteThomas, I'm definitely not saying he's above criticism. What I am saying is that the anger over what prosperity preachers are paid - effectively to tell lies to their people, to deceive them, and give place to their want of deception - is justified by the fact that they're not worth it, Biblically. John MacArthur, however, is worth every penny he's paid in my opinion. There's no Biblical warrant to be angry with a man who is teaching well, is giving substantially of his time and resources, and honors Christ in his office - praise God he's wealthy!
ReplyDeleteAnd the reason I say Steve is bent out of shape, Jason, over the tipping of his Charismatic hobby horse, is because he's made it clear in his article - why else would he bring up whether or not John took the Charismatics he called out in Strange Fire to coffee or not?
It's an honor that John's church wants to pay him what they do, because he does honorable work. It's a shame that prosperity preachers' people want to pay them what they do because they are thieves, deceivers, and are leading their people to Hell. They're not worth minimum wage.
If the criticism made of prosperity preachers were merely that they weren't worth it then what you say would be justified, however it isn't. Steve brings up strange fire because that's what MacArthur's colleagues said Steve should have done before calling MacArthur out. It's a question of consistency. Steve has repeatedly claimed to be a semi-cessationist, so how does that make him a charismatic?
Delete@Webster Hunt (Parts Man)
DeleteHi Webster Hunt,
Just several comments please:
1. I'd agree with and echo what Jason and Thomas said here.
2. Also, when you say stuff like "There's no Biblical warrant to be angry with a man who is teaching well..." and "bent out of shape" it seems to me you're essentially putting "emotions" into Steve's mouth, so to speak. I don't detect anger in Steve's post. In fact, it seems to be more or less matter of fact.
3. With due respect, it strikes me as if you're attempting to psychoanalyze Steve when you say: "And the reason I say Steve is bent out of shape, Jason, over the tipping of his Charismatic hobby horse, is because he's made it clear in his article - why else would he bring up whether or not John took the Charismatics he called out in Strange Fire to coffee or not?"
But why the psychoanalysis? Why not just deal with Steve's arguments?
4. After all, it's possible for a third party to psychoanalyze MacArthur and the MacArthurites' inconsistencies. Why do several MacArthurites fail to deal with the substance of Steve's arguments when push comes to shove, and instead throw up attempted clever quips and snipe from their Twitter accounts and so forth? Why do they say stuff like Steve has "jumped the shark" despite probably agreeing with the majority of what Steve writes and still writes such as against atheism, secular scientism, or for inerrancy, the doctrine of God, etc.? Is it because defending friends is more central to their identity than even (God forbid) defending the truth?
5. On a related note, you may be interested in C.S. Lewis' essay "Psycho-analysis and Literary Criticism."
6. Also, it's a bit of a pernicious characterization to act as if charismaticism is just his "hobby horse." Steve has criticized as well as commended certain aspects of both cessationism as well as charismaticism. And Steve posts widely on a range of diverse topics and subjects.
7. If I may, it seems like you're assuming this may be Steve's own standard? If so, just to be clear, I believe what Steve is doing is holding John MacArthur to the same standard MacArthur holds others to, i.e., prosperity preachers. It's not what the Bible teaches or doesn't teach, per se, but what MacArthur teaches. And the two aren't necessarily identical, even though we hope they would be.
8. Besides, if we paid preachers or pastors based on the scale you wish to pay them, which seems to be based on how faithful they are to the truth if I'm reading you correctly, then does that mean if a Baptist attends a Presbyterian church in his local community since that's the best church available in his area, then the Baptist is entitled to pay the Presbyterian pastor or preacher less than what the Presbyterian congregation would pay him? Would an otherwise biblically faithful Arminian pastor deserve less than an otherwise biblically faithful Reformed pastor?
9. What about biblically faithful preachers who make a fraction of what MacArthur makes? Many of whom struggle to make ends meet? Are you suggesting they too deserve to be as wealthy as MacArthur? Should Jesus have been uber wealthy, a multi-gazillionaire, while he was here in the flesh in 1st century Israel?
Webster Hunt
Delete"Thomas, I'm definitely not saying he's above criticism."
You're certainly acting as if he's above criticism.
"There's no Biblical warrant to be angry with a man who is teaching well…Steve is bent out of shape…"
Your imputations expose your own emotional state rather than mine.
To judge by Fred Butler's language ("a bunch of busybody old church ladies." "old gossipy wags," "a whiney tone police YRR crybaby"), he's the one who appears to be bent out of shape.
"And the reason I say Steve is bent out of shape, Jason, over the tipping of his Charismatic hobby horse…"
i) If the charismatic issue is my hobby horse, then it's no less a hobby horse of John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Dan Phillips, Fred Butler, Nathan Busenitz, Mike Riccardi, Justin Peters, Steve Lawson, Tom Pennington, Todd Friel, Ed Dingess, Frank Turk, et al. Why are you so conspicuously one-sided?
ii) As far as that goes, perhaps you're "angry" and "bent out of shape" because I'm tipping over your cessationist hobby horse.
iii) Actually, my interest in the charismatic issue is secondary to my interest in the argument from miracles. If you were to pay attention to my actual posting on the issue, you'd notice that the argument from miracles is my central concern. Hard-line cessationism undermines the argument from miracles.
iv) My "Golden calf" post had two sources of inspiration. At the time, Furtick and Driscoll were very much in the news. In addition, I ran across a post on the Bayly blog concerning MacArthur's income. It's those two items that prompted my post. I used that as an occasion to discuss the issue of clerical financial impropriety more generally.
"…is because he's made it clear in his article - why else would he bring up whether or not John took the Charismatics he called out in Strange Fire to coffee or not?"
As I already explained, I brought it up because MacArthur brought it up. Once again, why are you so conspicuously one-sided?
"John MacArthur, however, is worth every penny he's paid in my opinion."
Since MacArthur and his spokesmen refuse to divulge his total income from church-related activities, your opinion is uninformed. How can you know that he's worth every penny he's paid when you don't even know how much he's paid?
"praise God he's wealthy!"
i) A pastor shouldn't become a rich man from church-related activities. A church ought not exist to make the pastor wealthy. Rather, tithes, offerings, donations, royalties etc. should go to furthering the work of the gospel. What do you think the church is for?
Likewise, as I said to another commenter, the pastor shouldn't be a breed apart from those to whom he ministers. He is, himself, a sheep.
ii) As far as that goes, a youth pastor (to take one example) who's married with a growing family may be struggling financially because he has so many extra expenses (e.g. rent, condo dues, and/or mortgage payments, student loans, healthcare, childcare, food, clothing) whereas a middle-aged senior pastor is drawing a higher income even though he needs less to live on than the youth pastor, because he doesn't have these same expenses. He's paid off the mortgage, the kids are grown, employed, living on their own.
First, as has been stated, Webster, you may be speaking from ignorance, so it is not helpful to MacArthur by saying "praise God he is wealthy." Since we have no knowledge of what he makes or what he does with said money.
ReplyDelete"i) A pastor shouldn't become a rich man from church-related activities. A church ought not exist to make the pastor wealthy. Rather, tithes, offerings, donations, royalties etc. should go to furthering the work of the gospel. What do you think the church is for?"
First "tithes" are an Old Testament tax, so we can stop including that to our discussions. Secondly, define “rich” in that statement. Does it mean that he has more than what Scripture says he should have or what YOU say he should have? That above statement insinuates that you think he has more than he should AND that he is not using it for the spread of the Gospel. It may not have been the intent, but it was an overreaching statement likewise grounded in ignorance.
Anyway, are we not told in Scripture that a Pastor is worthy to be paid for his labors? There is no set cap on that in Scripture, so would that not be up to the congregation of said pastor to choose what they wish to give?
It seems that your problem is that “MacArthurites” are speaking about prosperity teachers and people like Furtick, Driscoll and Noble, who have an obvious love of money. And so your logic seems to follow, if MacArthurites are attacking these people, but not allowing others to even question MacArthur and his income then they are living by a double standard.
But you are comparing rotten fruit to an orange, so the double standard is nonexistent.
The likes of Furtick, Noble, Driscoll, McDonald or any prosperity gospel teacher you want to name can be shown to have serious sin/unfaithfulness/heretic teaching, attributed to them. We are speaking of people who have been shown, even to the World, that they are no longer qualified to be pastors/shepherds. They have done this to themselves and they are accountable not just to their church body, but to the entire Body of Christ because they have soiled the wedding garment of the Bride.
MacArthur on the other hand, what charge can you lay against him? Other than him confronting what he believes to be error.
So instead of patiently continuing to try and show from Scripture (like you do for many of your other articles) why you think MacArthur is wrong in his critique of the Charismatic movement, you came out of the shadows and bashed him on the back of the head. You have accused, whether on purpose or unintentionally, that he must be the same as the other guys because no one will say how much he makes.
Yet, since he has not done anything other than warn people against what he thinks is error, which you don’t like him for, he is not answerable to you to disclose any of that information, because you are not part of his congregation.
Before coming against him you could have at least called the church to find out HOW they decide how much to pay him, then you could have been more informed and maybe avoided some uneeded "debating" that seems to be arising.
John the Lesser
Delete"Since we have no knowledge of what he makes…"
Actually, we do have some knowledge of what he makes. And even that's a princely sum. But if he and his spokesmen refuse to disclose his total income, we don't know the bottom line.
"First 'tithes' are an Old Testament tax, so we can stop including that to our discussions."
That's simple-minded:
i) To begin with, even if you personally disapprove of tithes, that's irrelevant. The question at issue isn't whether you tithe, but whether some financial supporter's of MacArthur's ministry tithe.
ii) The basic distinction between tithes and offerings is a distinction between giving a regular amount at regular intervals (e.g. the same amount once a week or once a month) and giving which might vary in amount or frequency.
A tithe is a percentage of one's income (typically, but not necessarily, 10%), set aside for the church. It helps the church stay within budget if it can anticipate the financial inflow and outflow.
iii) There's an elementary distinction between a voluntary tithe and a mandatory tithe. Supporters of MacArthur's ministry can voluntarily commit to contribute a fixed amount each month (or whatever). That's not a requirement.
Anyway, your objection is a red herring. The question at issue is the licit or illicit appropriation of donated money.
"Secondly, define 'rich' in that statement."
I've already discussed that. For instance, "rich" compared to the average income of his parishioners.
"Does it mean that he has more than what Scripture says he should have or what YOU say he should have?"
Well, Scripture says "whoever would be first among you must be slave of all" (Mk 10:44).
"That above statement insinuates that you think he has more than he should AND that he is not using it for the spread of the Gospel."
You don't need to be in a high income bracket to spread the Gospel.
"Anyway, are we not told in Scripture that a Pastor is worthy to be paid for his labors?"
A red herring, since the question at issue is not whether he would be paid, but what he should be paid.
"There is no set cap on that in Scripture, so would that not be up to the congregation of said pastor to choose what they wish to give?"
Morally speaking, no. For instance when cult leaders and prosperity preachers milk their followers, no one is forcing their deluded followers to fork over the money. But we can still justly censure the cult leader or prosperity preacher for exploiting others. The fact that some people are easily duped doesn't mean you have a right to dupe them.
"But you are comparing rotten fruit to an orange, so the double standard is nonexistent."
Rotten fruit comes in many varieties, including rotten oranges.
"The likes of Furtick, Noble, Driscoll, McDonald or any prosperity gospel teacher you want to name can be shown to have serious sin/unfaithfulness/heretic teaching, attributed to them."
i) You seem to be claiming that it doesn't matter how much a pastor financially profits from church-related activities as long as his teaching is orthodox. However, orthopraxy is just as vital as orthodoxy.
ii) Moreover, hypocrites classically say one thing and do the opposite.
Cont. "MacArthur on the other hand, what charge can you lay against him?"
DeleteHow about turning his ministry into a sacred cash cow?
"So instead of patiently continuing to try and show from Scripture (like you do for many of your other articles) why you think MacArthur is wrong in his critique of the Charismatic movement."
I've presented detailed critiques of hardline cessationism.
"Yet, since he has not done anything other than warn people against what he thinks is error, which you don’t like him for, he is not answerable to you to disclose any of that information, because you are not part of his congregation."
Prosperity preachers would doubtless value your code of silence.
"Before coming against him you could have at least called the church to find out HOW they decide how much to pay him, then you could have been more informed and maybe avoided some uneeded "debating" that seems to be arising."
Is that what MacArthur did before naming and attacking various prosperity preachers?
Some devoted MacArthurites have been defending the financial aspects of his ministry by distinguishing good prosperity preachers from bad prosperity preachers. Let's examine the distinctions:
Delete1) It's irrelevant how much a pastor makes from church-related activities so long as his teaching his orthodox. Prosperity preachers are bad because their theology (the health-and-wealth gospel) is bad.
But there are obvious problems with that defense:
i) Christian piety includes orthopraxy as well as orthodoxy. There's more to Christian piety than what you say or what you believe. Your deeds should match your creed. Living out what you profess.
ii) In principle, a hypocrite can be a man of unimpeachable orthodoxy. He has a beautifully compartmentalized arrangement where he says all the right things, while doing the opposite. Impeccable theology united to morally blind behavior.
iii) In theory, a man could go into the ministry with the express purpose of making as much money (for himself and his relatives) as is legal. It's a business proposition. Say his preaching and teaching is completely orthodox. Say 99% of the budget is diverted to him and his relatives.
Is that a misappropriation of church funds? Or does his orthodoxy excuse it?
Suppose he lives in a residence the size of the Hurst Castle or Versailles? As long as he's orthodox, is that okay?
2) What's relevant is not how much a pastor makes from church-related activities, but what he does with it. So long as he's personally frugal, and donates most of it to charity.
But there are obvious problems with that defense:
i) Why is it right for him to make so much more than he needs (or his parishioners make), but wrong for him to spend that on himself? Why should he be paid so much if it's wrong for him to have a lifestyle to match?
Like saying it's okay to own a Lamborghini so long as you never drive it.
ii) What is a church for? Does a church exist to enrich the pastor? Or to evangelize the lost and disciple Christians?
What are parishioners give their money for? To further the Gospel? Or throw money at the pastor?
iii) It's not like you have to be wealthy to preach the Gospel.
John the Lesser,
ReplyDeleteWell, we know he made hundreds of thousands of dollars in 2010 and 2011 (see page 7 in both documents) from GTY:
http://baylyblog.com/files/old/files/gty2010.pdf
http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2012/953/846/2012-953846510-08efe8ea-9.pdf
I assume making over $600,000 in two years qualifies as "wealthy"?
Doesn't he have several other sources of income as well?
Unless he happens to live in a very expensive part of the country, paying any minister that much makes me feel uncomfortable. Is that moral intuition wrong?
In addition to what Matthew has asked, the document notes two of John MacArthur's sons work for GTY (or so it appears) - i.e. Matthew MacArthur as treasurer and Mark MacArthur as director. Were they appointed or elected to their positions? And did the congregation have a direct say in his sons being appointed or elected to these positions? Otherwise, wouldn't this be nepotism or something similar?
ReplyDelete