While I’m not a regular listener to John MacArthur’s sermons, I recently read and heard his series of sermons titled, “The Sufficiency of Scripture.” On the radio broadcast, MacArthur commented that this sermon captures the core of his values of his ministry. Though his sermon is titled “The Sufficiency of Scripture,” I found his introductory remarks to argue otherwise.
I’m convinced that John MacArthur has had a pronounced impact on the American Church. His teachings, theology and philosophy of ministry impact many corners of our country, and arguably, the world. And his reach concerns me. MacArthur may highly value the sufficiency of Scripture, yet his arguments are flawed and they compromise and limit the power, breadth and depth of God.
In this sermon, he identifies several concerns that urge him to preach this sermon. And it is in these concerns where he exposes his mistrust of the power of the Word of God. First, he is concerned that among church leaders there is a “great preoccupation with what I would call ‘worldly management technique.’” I agree with MacArthur in that if modern corporate management philosophy has replaced a biblical-basis for leadership, then there should be a concern for the kind of church we are building. However, like most other things, it would be unfair to “throw the baby out with the bath-water.”
There is much to be gained and gleaned from corporate leadership development. In fact, I would go so far to say that as believers, we should be learners of our society, glean the best, and ultimately redeem those management theories for the Kingdom of God. Luke 16.8 lies a great condemnation on believers when Jesus explains that “he people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light.” We have much to learn from the world around us.
Second, MacArthur critiques the entertainment culture of the church to draw people. He is concerned that churches are spending a lot of money to “entertain people.” In this area, I mostly agree with him. Many churches seem to embrace an entertainment culture and have failed to illustrate that God is enough to satisfy as Isaiah 55 proclaims.
Third, MacArthur criticize the church’s infatuation with mysticism or the occult. Here, MacArthur’s offense to the church and millions of believers is that he refuses to attribute the things that are from God to God. MacArthur’s theology limits his openness to an active God that does active things in our world–like heal people. Because MacArthur has reduced the gospel to right belief followed by right behavior, he misses the full reach that the gospel can have. It baffles me that MacArthur can believe in the God that raises Jesus from the dead, but refuses to believe that God has given us power (like the disciples of Scripture) to heal people.
Fourth, MacArthur critiques the realm of Psychology. And there is much to critique psychology and psychotherapy–especially in a believer’s reliance that counseling can do more for the soul that God. However, the realm of psychology has also been helpful (like many other disciplines) to expose God’s craftsmanship in humanity and how far we have fallen from the things that God intends for us.
Fifth, MacArthur ties biblical sufficiency with the “matter of marriage and family” and his concerns of the growing role of women in the church. It is unfortunate that MacArthur continues to encourage and expound a teaching that demeans and undermines God’s creation of women. It seems to me that it’s not the secular world that is guilty of simplifying and judging the Bible as unsophisticated.
I agree with MacArthur that “we do not any longer seem to believe that the Bible is sufficient for the life and conduct of the church. That is a sin.” While MacArthur has a respectful and obedient posture toward Scripture, I’m concerned that he has a limited understanding of the power of God and the Gospel. The Scripture is far more sufficient than what MacArthur advocates.