John MacArthur: I Won’t Speak at Conferences With Women Speakers
During last week’s Q&A chapel service, John MacArthur shared insights into his thought process of who he would speak alongside at a conference. The Grace Community Church pastor explained that it’s essential to establish an impeccable reputation so that no one questions your associations if you speak at conferences with those you disagree with, while reinforcing his belief that he would not speak at a conference with a woman speaker.
Years ago I decided I wasn’t going to preach only to the people who already believe everything I believe. What’s the point? So I was criticized because, you know, I would be in a conference with someone who believed differently about certain thing. I mean they gave me trouble when I started going to Ligonier conferences over baby baptism and covenant theology and all that. But again, if they’re going to give me a platform, I’ll take it.
…And I think what is most important is that you establish your own fidelity to the degree that people don’t question your associations. I mean if I’m at Ligonier, nobody thinks I abandoned what I believe. If I went over to Jack Hayford’s church and did a Pastors Conference of Foursquare and charismatics, nobody felt that I had abandoned my non-charismatic view. I’ve got too much in print on that.
Now, there’s a line at which you can’t cross because someone is blatantly disobedient to Scripture. That would be—you won’t see me—on a panoply of speakers that includes women because that is a total violation of scripture. When you have men and women preachers—I can’t do that because you know, your reputation at that point becomes very muddy.
MacArthur also noted that he would not appear with someone whose “so tapped into the culture that they’re viewed a problem outside tolerable convictions.” He also shared “I wouldn’t speak on the same place as Bill Hybels or Joel Osteen. I don’t know about him-I don’t know if he’s a Christian or not. But even if I did, nobody would think I had compromised, because they would know by reputation that I’m going to be faithful to the truth,”
Again, it’s funny to me how selective the memory of certain people are.
On the GTY youtube channel, there is a video entitled “A Deeper Healing (Joni Eareckson Tada) (Selected Scriptures)” taken from John Macarthur’s own “Strange Fire Conference”. In the video description it says: “For details about this **sermon** and for related resources, click here…”
I don’t have a problem with Joni Eareckson Tada or with John Macarthur’s ministry as a whole but it’s obviously not as simple as “I won’t speak at a conference with women speakers”.
Sounds kinda like double speak to me, John. An argument could be made that Calvinism violates teachings from the Bible. The same goes for charismatics and tongue speakers. Have no fellowship with the evil forces of darkness, for starters. Has the love of money clouded your judgment?
Examples of Calvinism violations would be helpful….
Yeah.
There won’t be any. Just silly ad hominems
I would be interested in knowing how “tongue speakers” violate teachings from the Bible. Also why would they be considered “evil forces of darkness”?
My problem with Calvinism is two-fold. They seem to exclusively rely on a couple of passages of scripture and tend to ignore the rest. (Election in every single sermon). Two–the theology of election reminds me of the Pharasees in Jesus’ day. “We’re cool–we have Abraham for our father. But everyone else is up the creek without a paddle”. Children of Abraham can be made of the rocks and stones. The elect can be made from the same.
You…realize…election….is biblical, right?
Sounds kinda like double speak to me, John. An argument could be made that Calvinism violates teachings from the Bible. The same goes for charismatics and tongue speakers. Have no fellowship with the evil forces of darkness, for starters. Has the love of money clouded your judgment?
“An argument could be made…”
Yes, an argument can be made for just about any ridiculous notion if people try hard enough. We are not talking about hypothetical “arguments” but about what the Bible plainly states. The Bible is clear and explicit on it’s prohibitions regarding women teaching men, that’s what Pastor MacArthur is referring to. That’s why he used as the reference to Jack Hayford as a counter-example, good people can disagree regarding non-essential doctrines when the Bible doesn’t plainly state a position (such as the gift of tongues being relevant today).
The obtuseness (intentional I’ve come to believe) of some towards *obvious* apples and oranges comparisons is tiring. We get it that you don’t like John MacArthur for some reason, including using dismissive condescension addressing him as “John”. Your opinion is noted. Please don’t insult our intelligence with nonsense hypotheticals.
he is exactly correct. any preacher who is not true to the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not a Christian preacher.
Has John MacArthur ever in his 800 year history of teaching his version of biblical truth ever admit to being wrong about something, anything ?
Yes, Pastor MacArthur revised his earlier postition concerning the eternal sonship of Christ. If anyone is interested, you can read what Pastor MacArthur wrote in his article, “Reexamining the Eternal Sonship of Christ, ” published in the Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 6, no. 1 (2001):21-23. In his article, MacArthur explained, “I have made many such revisions over the years, often taking measures to delete erroneous or confusing statements from my own tapes, and sometimes even preaching again through portions of Scripture with a better understanding of the text. Whenever I have changed my opinion on any significant doctrinal issue, I have sought to make my change of opinion, and the reasons for it, as clear as possible. To that end, I want to state publicly that I have abandoned the doctrine of ‘incarnational sonship.’ Careful study and reflection have brought me to understand that Scripture does indeed present the relationship between God the Father and Christ the Son as an eternal Father-Son relationship. I no longer regard Christ’s sonship as a role He assumed in His incarnation” (21). As a pastor myself, for 30+ years, I highly respect Pastor MacArthur and his faithful 50+ years of ministry to the churches Christ called him to serve.
Has he changed his opinion that the blood of Jesus Christ is just human blood and nothing else?
Triaging doctrine is unbiblical and MacArthur’s doing that. He’s joining with people who go against what Scripture teaches about charismaticism or infant baptism, so does he *really* believe those issue for example, are unbiblical? Did MacArthur not say himself that Charismatics blaspheme and monetize the Holy Spirit, promoting a faith that is no faith at all? Did he not say that charismatics have spent the last 100 years establishing falsehoods about the Holy Spirit? If he has (and he has), then how does he justify platforming with such unholy, corrupt blasphemers? That is a violation of 2 John 9-11. His actions show his view of both issues is a personal preference rather than absolute biblical truth (Peter’s hypocrisy that led Barnabas astray, comes to mind). Actions show what one truly believes, not what one claims to believe. If Scripture teaches one way, then to embrace teachers/conferences that teach against that is indeed violating Scripture, just as much as a woman who teaches men. When one starts to divide Scripture into doctrines of what one believes is “more” important than other doctrines, one is judging God, violating the entire body of Truth (John 17:17).
1Ti 6:3 If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, 4 he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions
As to never being at a conference where women are speaking, Joni Tada has done that on more than on occasion at GCC. Moreover, MacArthur was at Proclaim19 where both Tada and Kay Warren were scheduled to speak. Now, if he’s redefining speaking as to mean preaching, that’s word play to justify what is prohibited by God. Any time a woman is up on stage speaking, even as a “testimony”, is she not also teaching or proclaiming something about God to others? Does Scripture not address this very issue?