Back   828 Ministries
Font
PageWidth
Original Content at
https://www.828ministries.com/articles/John-MacArthur-s-Tortured-by-Anthony-Wade-God-200728-611.html

July 28, 2020

John MacArthur's Tortured Arguments for Defying COVID Order

By Anthony Wade

Johnny Mac has changed his mind and decided to defy his state's order to reopen his church in the middle of a plague...

::::::::


(Image by Unknown Owner)   Details   DMCA

I have always respected the biblical expertise of John MacArthur. I have also always spoken against his false beliefs of Calvinism and cessationism. I just never thought his allowance of that serious leaven into his theology would lead to this. We are in the middle of a pandemic that has killed 150,000 Americans, while infecting over four million others. Many who survive are never the same. Boston Red Sox pitcher Eduardo Rodriguez for example survived and is now being evaluated for a heart infection. From the perspective of the church there is only one biblical stance that has multiple reasons. One could simply rely upon the biblical command to obey authorities, but we could also look at the entire canon of scripture to see a God who always demands we take care of each other and the least in society. The only arguments against these are carnal in nature and based outside of scripture. We live in a mega church culture where we mistakenly think that church must only be our hour and a half on Sunday. Most of the false teachers simply need their tithes again so they leverage the bible and the constitution to make dubious arguments that place the Christian as a victim instead of being part of the community solution. This is not just about that hour and half. It is about how many people those thousands then go and infect after the service. As the church, it is breathtaking that we seemingly do not care. I can understand why charlatans like Rodney Howard Browne sides against the bible. I just did not see MacArthur coming. Let us reason together through his tortured defense.

"Christ is Lord of all. He is the one true head of the church (Ephesians 1:22; 5:23; Colossians 1:18). He is also King of kings--sovereign over every earthly authority (1 Timothy 6:15; Revelation 17:14; 19:16). Grace Community Church has always stood immovably on those biblical principles. As His people, we are subject to His will and commands as revealed in Scripture. Therefore we cannot and will not acquiesce to a government-imposed moratorium on our weekly congregational worship or other regular corporate gatherings. Compliance would be disobedience to our Lord's clear commands." - John MacArthur

I expected better from someone as versed as John MacArthur. The opening here are statements of fact that are irrelevant to this discussion. No one is arguing if Christ is the head of the church or not. Citing multiple scriptures for backup of such an immaterial point only serves to provide a patina of piety indicating the true justification is probably going to fall way short. Likewise, Jesus is the King of Kings, sovereign over all earthly authority including the Governor of California. When we combine this fact with the proper understanding of God's permissive will, we can conclude that the order is in fact from God Himself, if not at minimum allowed by Him. God does not need John MacArthur to defend Him in this or any other scenario. Johnny Mac has laid the gauntlet down now that his belief is that compliance with the Executive Order would equal disobedience to Scripture. That is the threshold he must now meet.

"Some will think such a firm statement is inexorably in conflict with the command to be subject to governing authorities laid out in Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2. Scripture does mandate careful, conscientious obedience to all governing authority, including kings, governors, employers, and their agents (in Peter's words, "not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable" [1 Peter 2:18]). Insofar as government authorities do not attempt to assert ecclesiastical authority or issue orders that forbid our obedience to God's law, their authority is to be obeyed whether we agree with their rulings or not. In other words, Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2 still bind the consciences of individual Christians. We are to obey our civil authorities as powers that God Himself has ordained. However, while civil government is invested with divine authority to rule the state, neither of those texts (nor any other) grants civic rulers jurisdiction over the church. God has established three institutions within human society: the family, the state, and the church. Each institution has a sphere of authority with jurisdictional limits that must be respected. A father's authority is limited to his own family. Church leaders' authority (which is delegated to them by Christ) is limited to church matters. And government is specifically tasked with the oversight and protection of civic peace and well-being within the boundaries of a nation or community. God has not granted civic rulers authority over the doctrine, practice, or polity of the church. The biblical framework limits the authority of each institution to its specific jurisdiction. The church does not have the right to meddle in the affairs of individual families and ignore parental authority. Parents do not have authority to manage civil matters while circumventing government officials. And similarly, government officials have no right to interfere in ecclesiastical matters in a way that undermines or disregards the God-given authority of pastors and elders." - John MacArthur

MacArthur is so well known for his ability to exposit the word of God that many will fail to ask the needed questions here. He correctly asserts the importance of ruling authorities and is wise to lead with these objections because most would start there to object. He claims beyond scripture that if the state seeks ecclesiastical authority or forbids the obedience to God's law then these verses are to be ignored. So let us grant him these arguments because the state is certainly is not trying to run the church or direct churchgoers to violate God's word. Mac has set the bar pretty high here. We need to be reminded here that his teaching on family, church and state are his opinion, not scripture. He sets it up this way to delineate that the people in charge of the state are not in charge of the church. While true on matters of ecclesiology, it is decidedly untrue on matters of the state. In this dense discussion, let us not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about the state deciding on matters of public health, period. That is not a matter of doctrine, practice or polity. In fact, it has nothing to do with the church being a church. The Executive order bans ALL gatherings. MacArthur is off to quite a weak start here.

"When any one of the three institutions exceeds the bounds of its jurisdiction it is the duty of the other institutions to curtail that overreach. Therefore, when any government official issues orders regulating worship (such as bans on singing, caps on attendance, or prohibitions against gatherings and services), he steps outside the legitimate bounds of his God-ordained authority as a civic official and arrogates to himself authority that God expressly grants only to the Lord Jesus Christ as sovereign over His Kingdom, which is the church. His rule is mediated to local churches through those pastors and elders who teach His Word (Matthew 16:18-19; 2 Timothy 3:16-4:2)." - John MacArthur

Whoa Johnny, not so fast. First of all, this tripart argument he is clinging to is simply not biblical. He made it up. Sure, it sounds acceptable but do not confuse it with what God has said. Secondly, the broad assertion he makes is ridiculous. To MacArthur, the REASON seems to not matter. I agree if the state nilly-willy decides that churches cannot sing anymore that would be absurd and unacceptable. Is MacArthur really arguing that the state can never have a good enough reason to cap attendance? Never have the right to temporarily limit gatherings? Never? You see the problem with his tripart argument is he acts as if there is no blurring between the three institutions but there are all the time. If a pastor suspected a father of beating his children is Mac really arguing that he has no role as a pastor to intervene? If a congregant sees the doctrine of a church slipping he or she is required to question the leadership about it. We are sheep before the Lord, not before man. So if the state in pursuit of reversing a pandemic decides that public gatherings are petri dishes for the spread of the virus and therefore must be halted they have every right and responsibility to include churches.

"Therefore, in response to the recent state order requiring churches in California to limit or suspend all meetings indefinitely, we, the pastors and elders of Grace Community Church, respectfully inform our civic leaders that they have exceeded their legitimate jurisdiction, and faithfulness to Christ prohibits us from observing the restrictions they want to impose on our corporate worship services. Said another way, it has never been the prerogative of civil government to order, modify, forbid, or mandate worship. When, how, and how often the church worships is not subject to Caesar. Caesar himself is subject to God. Jesus affirmed that principle when He told Pilate, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above" (John 19:11). And because Christ is head of the church, ecclesiastical matters pertain to His Kingdom, not Caesar's. Jesus drew a stark distinction between those two kingdoms when He said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Mark 12:17). Our Lord Himself always rendered to Caesar what was Caesar's, but He never offered to Caesar what belongs solely to God." - John MacArthur

I am sorry John but your description is duplicitous. The Executive Order has nothing to do with ordering, modifying, or forbidding your service. It has to do with protecting you and your community. By the way, if you truly did not want Caesar's input on your church maybe you should not have entered into the 501c3 status your church currently enjoys. You cite the reference to rendering unto Caesar but ignore the glaring problem with your argument. The entire nation of Israel was under the thumb of Rome at that time! Did Jesus stand up and preach about how matters of the temple could have no influence from the state, or Rome? Of course not. Jesus did not care nor weigh in one whit about the politics of His age. Christ is the head of the church and he has told you what to do in Romans 13. You are choosing to ignore it because of this bogus argument about your three siloed society. Sorry, it does not work that way.

"As pastors and elders, we cannot hand over to earthly authorities any privilege or power that belongs solely to Christ as head of His church. Pastors and elders are the ones to whom Christ has given the duty and the right to exercise His spiritual authority in the church (1 Peter 5:1-4; Hebrews 13:7, 17)--and Scripture alone defines how and whom they are to serve (1 Corinthians 4:1-4). They have no duty to follow orders from a civil government attempting to regulate the worship or governance of the church. In fact, pastors who cede their Christ-delegated authority in the church to a civil ruler have abdicated their responsibility before their Lord and violated the God-ordained spheres of authority as much as the secular official who illegitimately imposes his authority upon the church. Our church's doctrinal statement has included this paragraph for more than 40 years: We teach the autonomy of the local church, free from any external authority or control, with the right of self-government and freedom from the interference of any hierarchy of individuals or organizations (Titus 1:5). We teach that it is scriptural for true churches to cooperate with each other for the presentation and propagation of the faith. Each local church, however, through its elders and their interpretation and application of Scripture, should be the sole judge of the measure and method of its cooperation. The elders should determine all other matters of membership, policy, discipline, benevolence, and government as well (Acts 15:19-31; 20:28; 1 Corinthians 5:4-7, 13; 1 Peter 5:1-4). In short, as the church, we do not need the state's permission to serve and worship our Lord as He has commanded. The church is Christ's precious bride (2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5:23-27). She belongs to Him alone. She exists by His will and serves under His authority. He will tolerate no assault on her purity and no infringement of His headship over her. All of that was established when Jesus said, "I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it" (Matthew 16:18)." - John MacArthur

Again, methinks thou does protest too much. This country is in the middle of a plague. Over 150,000 people are dead from it with four million more infected. Just think about what you are advocating for. To gather thousands of people indoors, in close proximity to each other and have them sing and shout amen, with hugs and all of the Christian accompaniment. The state has obligations to protect the corporate health. If five thousand people gather for your service you also seem to not care who they then take the virus to. Pastors who obey Romans 13 have not ceded anything. The church is not your building Pastor MacArthur. You can easily organize virtual services and still teach through streaming. Ideal? Hardly but at least it would be biblical. It is not infringing on the headship of Christ to obey Him when it comes to taking care of our neighbors. It is not infringement to obey authority that knows more than you do regarding epidemiology.

"Christ's own authority is "far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And [God the Father has] put all things in subjection under [Christ's] feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Ephesians 1:21-23).

Accordingly, the honor that we rightly owe our earthly governors and magistrates (Romans 13:7) does not include compliance when such officials attempt to subvert sound doctrine, corrupt biblical morality, exercise ecclesiastical authority, or supplant Christ as head of the church in any other way. The biblical order is clear: Christ is Lord over Caesar, not vice versa. Christ, not Caesar, is head of the church. Conversely, the church does not in any sense rule the state. Again, these are distinct kingdoms, and Christ is sovereign over both. Neither church nor state has any higher authority than that of Christ Himself, who declared, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth" (Matthew 28:18)." - John MacArthur

C'mon, enough already. The Executive Order does not seek to subvert sound doctrine, corrupt biblical morality, exercise ecclesiastical authority, or supplant Christ as head of the church. That is an asinine argument. It is interesting however that MacArthur is subverting sound doctrine by teaching his congregation to not care about their fellow man. To be so blindly arrogant as to think they know better about health matters they know nothing about. To damage their witness for Christ to the unsaved by acting so petulantly. MacArthur is also subverting biblical morality by pretending that only their opinion matters. It is interesting that MacArthur claims to have no authority to rule the state but that is exactly what he is doing. The state has decreed something and he has said no.

"Notice that we are not making a constitutional argument, even though the First Amendment of the United States Constitution expressly affirms this principle in its opening words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The right we are appealing to was not created by the Constitution. It is one of those unalienable rights granted solely by God, who ordained human government and establishes both the extent and the limitations of the state's authority (Romans 13:1-7). Our argument therefore is purposely not grounded in the First Amendment; it is based on the same biblical principles that the Amendment itself is founded upon. The exercise of true religion is a divine duty given to men and women created in God's image (Genesis 1:26-27; Acts 4:18-20; 5:29; cf. Matthew 22:16-22). In other words, freedom of worship is a command of God, not a privilege granted by the state." - John MacArthur

So you are not making a constitutional argument and then make a constitutional argument? In doing so it brilliantly displays the need for us to stay in our lanes. No rights are absolute and the public good often outweighs our individual rights. In fact, the Supreme Court just ruled that churches cannot ignore health orders from the state. Regardless of the state versus the church argument, worshipping God is not contained in the building that John MacArthur holds court. One can worship God anywhere. Now I agree that nothing beats corporate worship but the literal lives of people must take precedent both biblically and according to the state.

"An additional point needs to be made in this context. Christ is always faithful and true (Revelation 19:11). Human governments are not so trustworthy. Scripture says, "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one" (1 John 5:19). That refers, of course, to Satan. John 12:31 and 16:11 call him "the ruler of this world," meaning he wields power and influence through this world's political systems (cf. Luke 4:6; Ephesians 2:2; 6:12). Jesus said of him, "he is a liar and the father of lies" (John 8:44). History is full of painful reminders that government power is easily and frequently abused for evil purposes. Politicians may manipulate statistics and the media can cover up or camouflage inconvenient truths. So a discerning church cannot passively or automatically comply if the government orders a shutdown of congregational meetings--even if the reason given is a concern for public health and safety." - John MacArthur

You mean that Christ is always faithful unless you do not like the way Romans 13 affects your ability to meet in public. That aside, look at the dripping arrogance here. The brushing aside of concerns for the public health from a pastor is staggering. Of course we discern but there is no discernment being displayed here. This is simply a pastor who garnered a great deal of criticism for originally complying who now seeks to use the bile to justify reversing his position.

"The church by definition is an assembly. That is the literal meaning of the Greek word for "church"--ekklesia--the assembly of the called-out ones. A non-assembling assembly is a contradiction in terms. Christians are therefore commanded not to forsake the practice of meeting together (Hebrews 10:25)--and no earthly state has a right to restrict, delimit, or forbid the assembling of believers. We have always supported the underground church in nations where Christian congregational worship is deemed illegal by the state. When officials restrict church attendance to a certain number, they attempt to impose a restriction that in principle makes it impossible for the saints to gather as the church. When officials prohibit singing in worship services, they attempt to impose a restriction that in principle makes it impossible for the people of God to obey the commands of Ephesians 5:19 and Colossians 3:16. When officials mandate distancing, they attempt to impose a restriction that in principle makes it impossible to experience the close communion between believers that is commanded in Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, and 1 Thessalonians 5:26. In all those spheres, we must submit to our Lord." - John MacArthur

The first error here is in thinking an assembly must only be in a corporate church building. Are you seriously making a biblical argument that God looks badly upon virtual corporate worship? That only gathering in your mega church qualifies? That is a specious argument at best. It is not impossible for the church to gather during this time. A plethora of congregations still meet online, with teaching being streamed and pastors actually behaving like pastors in outreaching all of their saints. Church after church still operate benevolence ministries helping the community during this time as well. You can obey the word and obey the state at the same time. You just need to get over yourself. What MacArthur also never mentions is that these orders are temporary. They are to help defeat the deadly virus killing so many people.

"Although we in America may be unaccustomed to government intrusion into the church of our Lord Jesus Christ, this is by no means the first time in church history that Christians have had to deal with government overreach or hostile rulers. As a matter of fact, persecution of the church by government authorities has been the norm, not the exception, throughout church history. "Indeed," Scripture says, "all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted" (2 Timothy 3:12). Historically, the two main persecutors have always been secular government and false religion. Most of Christianity's martyrs have died because they refused to obey such authorities. This is, after all, what Christ promised: "If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you" (John 15:20). In the last of the beatitudes, He said, "Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matthew 5:11-12)." - John MacArthur

Are you serious? In the face of 150,000 dead and four million infected you want to argue that being asked to stay home is persecution? Really? This peddling of the victim mentality for the church is usually reserved for the NAR dominionists. Sad how far MacArthur is willing to fall here. Maybe he can rest in this being predestined.

"As government policy moves further away from biblical principles, and as legal and political pressures against the church intensify, we must recognize that the Lord may be using these pressures as means of purging to reveal the true church. Succumbing to governmental overreach may cause churches to remain closed indefinitely. How can the true church of Jesus Christ distinguish herself in such a hostile climate? There is only one way: bold allegiance to the Lord Jesus Christ. Even where governments seem sympathetic to the church, Christian leaders have often needed to push back against aggressive state officials. In Calvin's Geneva, for example, church officials at times needed to fend off attempts by the city council to govern aspects of worship, church polity, and church discipline. The Church of England has never fully reformed, precisely because the British Crown and Parliament have always meddled in church affairs. In 1662, the Puritans were ejected from their pulpits because they refused to bow to government mandates regarding use of the Book of Common Prayer, the wearing of vestments, and other ceremonial aspects of state-regulated worship. The British Monarch still claims to be the supreme governor and titular head of the Anglican Church. But again: Christ is the one true head of His church, and we intend to honor that vital truth in all our gatherings. For that preeminent reason, we cannot accept and will not bow to the intrusive restrictions government officials now want to impose on our congregation. We offer this response without rancor, and not out of hearts that are combative or rebellious (1 Timothy 2:1-8; 1 Peter 2:13-17), but with a sobering awareness that we must answer to the Lord Jesus for the stewardship He has given to us as shepherds of His precious flock. To government officials, we respectfully say with the apostles, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to give heed to you rather than to God, you be the judge" (Acts 4:19). And our unhesitating reply to that question is the same as the apostles': "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). Our prayer is that every faithful congregation will stand with us in obedience to our Lord as Christians have done through the centuries." - John MacArthur

Sigh. John MacArthur is better than this. At least he used to be. The verse from Acts is when the religious leaders told the apostles to stop preaching the Gospel. It has nothing to do with the state and more importantly, this situation is not preventing the spreading of the Gospel. It is about the fact that we are going through the worst pandemic in 100 years and in the face of so many people dead, you would think the first place for compassion would be the church of Jesus Christ. So sad that so many mega-church false teachers gathered together starting with Rodney Howard Browne to demand an unbiblical defiance of authority thumbing their nose at the state, the bible and all other human beings. So sad that from Browne it has now ended with the once respected MacArthur. He added an addendum to this statement, trying to explain away why he complied originally and now defies the order. Within that addendum is this unbelievably callous statement:

"It is apparent that those original projections of death were wrong and the virus is nowhere near as dangerous as originally feared. "- John MacArthur

So 140,000 dead is too small in face of corporate worship? These lives didn't mean anything to God? This virus is nowhere near as dangerous? I guess we will check back in a month and see how many people John MacArthur's indifference and brutal heartlessness has infected or even killed.

Reverend Anthony Wade - July 28, 2020



Authors Bio:
Credentialed Minister of the Gospel for the Assemblies of God. Owner and founder of 828 ministries. Vice President for Goodwill Industries. Always remember that in all things God works for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.

Back