Evangelicals and New Calvinists Out-Foxed: MacArthur's Non-Scriptural Basis for Resistance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62nN2RDhjOA

This is a follow-up to the piece that appears here:

http://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-context-of-macarthurs-flawed-stand.html

If I had any doubts about John MacArthur's motivation regarding his defiance of the governor – his appearance on Tucker Carlson's programme certainly cleared things up.

First of all, shame on him for even appearing on such a deceitful show. He's hardly the first to sell out at the chance of appearing on the FOX channel.  

Carlson opens with the spurious argument that the Founders – who drafted the Bill of Rights, were fleeing religious persecution. What 18^th century Founders would he be referring to? Where in the Declaration of Independence is an appeal to religious liberty or reference to being persecuted?

Right from the get-go the segment can be pegged as propaganda directed toward a targeted audience. And don't forget this is election season.

Carlson further seems to suggest that churches (like the Episcopal Church) that agree with Governor Newsom are allowed to stay open as opposed to those that disagree which are subject to shut-down. If that's what he meant, that would be a blatant case of false reporting.

Perhaps Carlson meant the Episcopal Church (and other Mainline bodies) agree with Newsom and have willingly shut-down but that's not how he presented it. And I'm sorry but I cannot give him the benefit of the doubt.

Nor did MacArthur correct him. Clearly he's eager to play his part. To quote a line from the Canadian songbook – glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity.

But secondly, MacArthur made it very clear that his refusal was rooted in the fact that 'first and foremost it's a First Amendment right' and that 'we stand on that Amendment'.

The Church (or perhaps more specifically Grace Community Church) stands on that Amendment? That's an interesting and certainly very telling statement.

However, that's not the argument he's floating to the Christian community. So which is it? Or does MacArthur have one argument for the FOX crowd and another for his New Calvinist-Evangelical sphere?

He then makes a statistically-based medical argument and apparently suggests that if the governor's numbers don't meet our standards of veracity then we as citizens (remember he appealed to the Bill of Rights) have the right to refuse to obey. Does he think this is a Scriptural argument? I mean clearly he's suggesting that this goes beyond the question of Church. Apparently he wants to see large-scale civil disobedience.

Again, I thought he was against social activism? Perhaps we could say his opposition is limited to certain contexts – in which case that's a very different stand than what he has publically argued for.

Again as I've repeatedly suggested I have no problem with Christians resisting the state's intrusion into the ecclesiastical sphere. It has to be done on a Biblical basis but that's not what MacArthur is doing here. He's arguing from a Classically Liberal Enlightenment rights-based platform and he's effectively arguing that common sense or reason (as he sees it) overrides the authority of the state. We don't agree with his decision so we have the 'right' to simply break the law.

Is this really the message he wants to communicate? That we can break the law when we don't agree with the statistics the state uses as a basis for legislation? Never mind the fact that his argument actually seems to grant the idea that the state has authority with regard to the Church – until it becomes unreasonable. It's just that he doesn't agree with the decisions being made and so on that basis he has the right to resist.

He backs all of this up with an appeal to emotion and the needs of people – to hospital visits, children's ministry, school students, the lack of funerals and weddings. I must say I was left somewhat speechless by his comments – the whole thing struck me as pathetic and shameful.

But please notice there's no appeal to Scripture, no discussion of the theological basis for his position. He makes a disingenuous appeal to the Protestant heritage in a kind of lame dig at the protest movements – and then celebrates the fact that his congregation has filled back up with thousands of people. Sorry for labouring the point but I thought he didn't like protesting and social movements? Of course FOX doesn't represent a social movement does it? It has no activist agenda. It's playing no political role.

Once again, I do not believe the state has any standing when it comes to the Church but at the same time reckless action and tempting God neither honours Him nor is it loving one's neighbour. The Church should meet but at the same time some prudence needs to be employed with regard to how this is done. Letting thousands of 'hugging, mask rejecting people' pack into an auditorium is probably not the wisest move at this time. And so we must ask, if people get sick and die and MacArthur faces civil retribution because of it – is that really persecution? It's a mess to be sure and I hate to see the state flex its muscles in such a manner but at the same time the stance of MacArthur is not only disingenuous and un- (or perhaps more properly non-) Scriptural, I think it somewhat foolish and falsely motivated.

He had an opportunity in front of an audience of millions to argue (albeit briefly) for the idea that the state has no jurisdiction with regard to the Church – an entity of heavenly pilgrims and exiles. But MacArthur doesn't really believe it and he's far too invested in the society and its system to make such a stand.

And so we're left with his series of lame arguments and yet as is already clear in the cyber-realm, they are the very ear-tickling arguments the Trump and Libertarian wing of Evangelicalism wants to hear. He probably scored more points on Tucker Carlson than he did with his written statement – which ironically contradicts his statements made on FOX.

Either way, MacArthur needs to explain himself because he can't have it both ways.

Once again instead of clarity we are left with fog, smoke, mirrors and chaos. The shepherds are hirelings and mammon worshippers and the Church is being led on a daily basis to the point of dangerous political confrontation and they are happy to be used and bought by those who are taking the United States to the brink. These men will answer for it – the political hacks will too but the Church leaders face a far more severe judgment.

My respect for MacArthur has plummeted in recent years but this absurd interview takes it to another level.