response to MacArthur's statement against Social Justice and the Gospel

The first rule of evangelicalism Is: Do not criticize evangelicalism. 

You know a belief system has become fragile when its adherents feel the need to preemptively cut off challenges to their beliefs. 

continuing in the cruel and fissiparous spirit of The Nashville Statement, John MacArthur and his ilk have posted the next installment of their straight white patriarchal manifesto for the preservation of American evangelicalism in the form of the Statement on Social justice and the gospel, which clearly is a misnomer, since their point seems to be that social justice and the gospel have nothing to do with each other.. Having failed to silence voices from outside their tribalist bubble these men have decided their next best strategy is to frighten those within into covering their eyes and ears so that they cannot succumb to viral ideas against which they have not been sufficiently inoculated, particularly the dangerous and "unbiblical" idea of so-called "Social Justice.” In their rush to judge and silence ideas they find objectionable they are either ignorant or dismissive of entire Christian traditions devoted to the Biblical understanding of social justice. This is not particularly surprising from MacArthur, who has made other sweeping pronouncements about how those outside the white American Evangelical culture are not true Christians. For example, he arrogated ”We all understand that people in the Hispanic world know about christ. . . But they don’t know Christ. And they don’t know the Gospel” He is being consistent, then, when he and his cohort assert ‘WE AFFIRM that some cultures operate on assumptions that are inherently better than those of other cultures.’

There is no acknowledgement that Evangelicalism is, itself, a culture with its own inadequacies.

It’s all about racism

While his critique is ostensibly with the evangelical concern for social justice in general, MacArthur reserves almost all of his ire for the topic of racism which he dismisses as a primarily made-up issue invented by minority peoples who have been taught to feel like victims, thus distracting the church from the tasks of preaching and teaching. MacArthur repeatedly states how unfair it is that he should be accused of wielding power and privilege when he feels neither. in this way he trots out the tired cliche that the oppressors are the real victims and the victims the real oppressors. Oddly enough, in the middle of his sequence of affirmations and denials one topic pops up as particularly out of place. In the topic of HERESY there is superficial affirmation that teaching false doctrines should be eschewed But then follows a seemingly unnecessary insistence that being imperfect does not warrant an accusation of heresy. Since this topic is not at all linked to the document’s theme of social justice one is left with the impression that MacArthur has thrown this in in anticipation of criticism he may receive, especially in light of several public accusations of heresy his teaching has, previously, engendered.

Who is worthy?

my greatest frustration with this and similar documents is the arrogant tone with which the authors presume to be the only ones possessing the competence and Authority with which to interpret scripture on these matters. His view of scripture, like that of so many evangelicals seems very shallow and facile, as If it is only an instruction book. In the Nashville Statement. They went so far as to say there could be no room for disagreement—challenging their interpretation of Scripture in that document essentially delegitimizes the christian faith of the critic. In this document MacArthur clarifies “We further deny that competency to teach on any biblical issue comes from any qualification for spiritual people other than clear understanding and simple communication of what is revealed in Scripture.” (Emphasis mine) They do not clarify their criteria for being “a spiritual person” capable of understanding and preaching the gospel, however, as noted above, MacArthur has already declared that Hispanic people are not qualified to understand and teach, because of their inferior culture. Later in the affirmation of complementarianism he notes that women are not qualified to understand and teach what the scriptures reveal.

MacArthur’s confidence in his own objectivity is troubling. I hope that if he found himself on a church committee charged with disciplining a congregant and it turned out the congregant was a family member that he would have the honesty and integrity to recuse himself for lack of objectivity. but, who knows how far his belief in his freedom from bias goes? He does not address the issue of conflict of interest, the fact that he is naming himself the authority on who has authority. I wonder, does he not see how it diminishes his credibility when he, a white, American evangelical man works so frantically to silence those who seek to awaken white people to the benefits they have enjoyed at others’ expense? And when he seeks to silence those who would remind us of the genocidal atrocities that expose the lie of “American exceptionalism?”and when he declares that there is no room for christian disagreement with his hermeneutic? And when he ignores and silences decades of biblical scholarship on gender equality?

As Shakespeare might say, the man doth protest too much, methinks.

Nothing below the surface

The document begins with a blanket dismissal of the fields of sociology, psychology, and political science as having nothing to contribute to the life of faith. This kind of anti-intellectualism and hubris is very reminiscent of the fundamentalism of the first half of the 20th century. If you say the word fundamentalist around a group of evangelicals, especially well educated evangelicals, you are likely to be the recipient of a lengthy lecture on the fundamentalist-modernist debates. In the face of modernism at the turn-of-the-century there was great excitement about what science and technology could bring to humanity. Fundamentalists, however, were threatened by these new ideas. Where modernism proposed the truth is an ever growing narrative discovered more deeply as you peel away the layers, fundamentalists dug in and insisted that there is no new truth. the narrative is already written and anything found that doesn’t fit with that narrative must be rejected. this was even taken to the extreme that when fundamentalist timetables for creation did not match with the fossil records many fundamentalists insisted that God had lied and intentionally deceived us with false fossils to test whether we would believe our eyes and scientific instruments or believe the Bible as they interpreted it.Essentially, anything that conflicts with the approved narrative is “Fake News." Evangelicalism grew out of fundamentalism when some Christians were not threatened by the scientific methods of modernism. they felt confident that “all truth is God‘s truth“ and that the things discovered through other avenues of study, if they were true, would not conflict with scripture, and if they seemed to, perhaps it was the understanding of scripture that needed correction. This attitude became the hallmark of evangelicalism and of evangelical schools like Wheaton College. to the common request for a definition of evangelicalism a common inside joke back in the day was “an evangelical is a fundamentalist that went to college.” In times of uncertainty and turmoil it is tempting to return to the seeming safety and comfort of a closed system where there are no unanswered questions. Fundamentalism is also characterized by its superficiality. Since the fundamentalist worldview doesn’t allow for complexity or The possibility of multiple perspectives it demands the dogmatic belief that there is only one authoritative, right perspective on anything and it is attainable by anyone who reads the Bible, which is a facile and simple summary of God’s rules. 

Particularly troubling to fundamentalists is any notion that there might be truth to which they do not have access or, especially, that there might be part of themselves to which they do not have easy access. With modernism came the thoroughly modern world view of Sigmund Freud and his study of the human unconscious. In the present postmodern world it is second nature to understand that human beings have hidden depths of which they are not always aware. 

You don't   know what you're doing.

MacArthur’s blanket denial that sin he can’t see might be at work subtly in the depths of his being is a mark of fundamentalist anxiety. It also flies in the face of the testimony of scripture. When Jesus looked down from the cross on those who had shouted “crucify him!“ He said “ father forgive them, they don’t know what they’re doing.“ --they were still responsible and needed forgiveness but they did not know their own hearts. likewise, the apostle Paul speaks of the human depths of the heart when he says “I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate  And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.  For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[a] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.Romans 7:15-24 New International Version (NIV)”ƒƒ 21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death?Romans 7:15-24 New International Version (NIV) 

The reflexive denial of the realities of unconscious and systemic racism and the unwillingness to consider the limits of their own knowledge in these issues exposes the authors’ fearful intention of leading the church in a regression to fundamentalism.How many fellow believers have to shout “you don’t know what you are doing" before evangelicals like John MacArthur will finally listen? 

Evangelicals love to adore white male leaders and follow them unquestioningly. John MacAurthur and his cronies have enjoyed that adoration too long to be able to see how they now self-servingly work to preserve it. What they don't  know about themselves will control them, but they can take some control and be transformed when they face the uncomfortable truth.