There is so much about this short comment that is bizarre.
1. What exactly is the sin that should be "repented" of? 2. Should individuals "repent" for the sins of others? 3. Your first response to the death of someone who was who's done significant good for The Church is to dredge up one incident from the past. 4. Do you take this same tone with every pastor that dies, or just the ones you disagree with?
If this is how you show grace, you clearly need repentance of your own. As you constantly harp on, humans are imperfect and "make mistakes", yet somehow your tolerance for imperfection and "mistakes" varies depending on how much you agree with their theological and political position.
Dan demonstrates something that seems to pervade the ASPL. When a prominent ASPL leader dies, you routinely see conservatives who's first response to to offer condolences. Dan's first response is this graceless bullshit. Noting that CT is hardly an unbiased source of objective journalism, is a topic for another time.
Of course, I said not a single thing bad about this man. I simply noted the reality of his graceless, sexist and oppressive positions and sincerely hoped he repented for the harm done by his harmful, oppressive positions.
Much worse has been said about saints like Jimmy Carter and John Lewis.
Should I NOT hope that he at some point repented for his awful behavior and words?
I normally keep quiet at the passing of people with awful positions. I'm not feeling it this week, but still, it's not an attack or anything.
Noting the actual harm done by people is not an attack.
It IS a rather amazing thing that you choose to attack the ultra-conservative CT in your defense of oppressive attitudes and actions.
There is, of course, nothing graceless in sincerely hoping someone had repented. Do YOU think there is?
"1. What exactly is the sin that should be "repented" of?"
The atrocious sin of telling an abused woman she should stay with her abuser. How do you not know this?
"2. Should individuals "repent" for the sins of others?"
No.
But people who promote exist, misogynistic and oppressive actions - and who do so while claiming to speak for God! - should repent for their atrocious actions.
Technically you didn’t, you just chose one incident that confirms your biased, prejudiced views of “conservative” Christian leaders as the focus of your comment. Your graceless inability to do anything but focus on what you perceive as evil, in the immediate wake of someone’s death shows nothing but hatred.
Let’s ignore the thousands of people who were positively impacted by McArthur and focus on one “negative” example.
If that’s the grace you embrace, then it’s foreign to any common notion of grace.
Who defined that action as an “atrocious sin”? Why is it not a mistake? Was there intent to harm the woman? Are you privy to all of the details or just what you gleaned from one CT article?
Really? It sounds like you are demanding that McArthur repent for someone else’s sin.
Who decides whether that was an “atrocious sin” or a mistake? Why does one who commits that particular “atrocious sin” forfeit grace? Why would you assume, what objective data have you seen, that leads you to jump to the conclusion that there has been no repentance? Why, is your first response to the death of someone who’s served YHWH so faithfully for so many years to immediately dredge up something negative?
Yet you seem to be demanding that Mc Arthur repent for something he may or may not have done, based on your unproven hunch about something that you think should be an “atrocious sin”. That you subjectively consider something “atrocious”, doesn’t mean that your hunch is correct.
Is encouraging an abused spouse of an abusive man a sin? How so? Is not her vow what's most important? This sad story speaks to the importance of long, chaste courtships in order to determine the true measure of one's intended.
This is one of those issues which comes up in most every divorce. If a couple is taking the traditional, stereotypical vows before saying "I do", one of them is "for better or worse". I'm unaware of such vows having limitations in either direction on any of the vows and I'm sure no one will be put off if the positive side of those vows are off the charts. But the slightest negative compels many to say to themselves, "I know I vowed to take this man/woman for poorer, in sickness and for worse, but I never thought it would be this bad."
I didn't read Dan's link, and I don't intend to do so. But how do we know just how abusive the abuse was and if the woman has an especially low tolerance for anything less that total love and happiness?
I think guiding one to remain true to their vows is the proper counseling every time. That's the bottom line and the standard on which any Christian counseling should be based. To dare say McArthur needs to repent from encouraging even this sad woman to do the hard thing for God's glory is abhorrent coming from someone who no doubt digs "pastors" who are women promoting, celebrating, defending and enabling homosexuality, abortion, open borders, and sticking their hands in the purses of the wealthy.
Who decides whether that was an “atrocious sin” or a mistake?
ALL moral reasoning adults do. We have an obligation to try to understand moral and immoral actions and, especially in cases where great oppressive harm is being done, to stand against that oppression. I wish that MacArthur had chosen to do that. I wish someone at his church had called him out on it. And I wish that moral reasoning adults today will learn from MacArthur's grave mistakes.
Are you suggesting it is NOT a great immoral atrocity to tell an abused woman to stay with her husband and, indeed, to shame her for considering leaving an abuser?
If so, what's wrong with you? WHY would you make that suggestion?
Why does one who commits that particular “atrocious sin” forfeit grace?
They don't. I didn't say he forfeited grace. I don't believe that. Rather, I believe there are serious consequences for those who do not stand up for and with the least of these, as Jesus literally taught.
Do you disagree and think it's OKAY to not stand with oppressed, abused women?
Why would you assume, what objective data have you seen, that leads you to jump to the conclusion that there has been no repentance?
In reading stories about this, including stories from conservative Christians, I've seen it noted that he and his church never apologized. Maybe those people were wrong. Do you THINK, in your head, that somewhere MacArthur secretly apologized for this? Or do you think he thought he did nothing wrong?
Why, is your first response to the death of someone who’s served YHWH so faithfully for so many years to immediately dredge up something negative?
1. I do not believe that anyone who has helped abusers and allied with them, while oppressing the abused HAS served God faithfully. I think the suggestion is a mockery of God and God's great Love and Justice.
2. Given that I side with this abused woman against her oppressors, do you think I should remain silent to allow people to "honor" such a man, in spite of significant, antibiblical failings? Does that not just empower the abusers and the oppressors of women?
While waiting to see if you answer, here's some of the (at least one) news story about the oppressive actions of MacArthur and his church...
"The elders had publicly disciplined a woman for refusing to take back her [abusive] husband. As it turned out, the woman’s fears proved true, and her husband went to prison for child molestation and abuse.
The church never retracted its discipline or apologized in the 20 years since.
As a lawyer and one of four officers on the elder board at Grace Community Church (GCC), Cho was asked to study the case. He tried to convince the church’s leaders to reconsider and at least privately make it right. He said pastor John MacArthur told him to “forget it.” When Cho continued to call the elders to “do justice” on the woman’s behalf, he said he was asked to walk back his conclusions or resign.
From the aforementioned conservative Christianity Today article.
More:
Though Cho stepped down quietly, he continued to hear from other women from his former church. They had also been doubted, dismissed, and implicitly or explicitly threatened with discipline while seeking refuge from their abusive marriages.
It's not even a one-off "mistake," the patriarchal patriarchs made. It was a series of deliberate choices that went on and on. And of course, it follows naturally from the Bible as rulings book theology that so infects so much of human tradition in the conservative church.
Tell me clearly: IF a woman is being abused by her husband (or her children), do you think she should leave him?
IF she leaves the abuser and chooses to divorce him, and IF her church publicly condemns her for that divorce, who is wrong, the church or the woman?
If you don't think a Christian (or other) woman should reasonably, morally choose to leave an abuser in good faith and without a guilty conscience, that's on you, dear man. I'm just here to let you know, it's not morally or emotionally healthy. It's not just. It's not Christ-ian. It is sick and depraved, this patriarchy that places a marriage above a woman's own interests and safety and, worse, which abuses the woman who does decide to make the rational and moral choice.
Yet there is nowhere near universal agreement on your hunch about this behavior. We don’t even really know if you’ve accurately characterized it.
“Are you suggesting it is NOT a great immoral atrocity to tell an abused woman to stay with her husband and, indeed, to shame her for considering leaving an abuser?”
I’m suggesting nothing, as I don’t have access to enough information to do so. I am suggesting that this woman is an adult human with agency and the freedom to do as she saw fit.
“If so, what's wrong with you? WHY would you make that suggestion?”
Nothing, as I didn’t make any suggestion.
“They don’t”
Yet you choose not to embrace grace and operate based on assumptions about which you have no definitive knowledge.
“Do you disagree and think it's OKAY to not stand with oppressed, abused women?”
Sure, it’s irrelevant. Unless you are demanding that there in only one way to “stand with abused women “, and that your way is the only way. I
Why would you assume, what objective data have you seen, that leads you to jump to the conclusion that there has been
“Do you THINK, in your head, that somewhere MacArthur secretly apologized for this?”
I have no idea. I’ll simply note that you claim to have read stories, yet don’t provide links or use “real journalism” sources. “Or do you think he thought he did nothing wrong?”
Again, no idea. I’ve never met him or discussed this with him. I’m not prepared to make serious allegations with no hard data.
1. What a notion. What you believe (not what you know or what is proven) about one incident out of a decades long ministry is enough to ignore everything else someone has done. I’ll remember and be spplying this standard in the future.
2. Impressive, you merely restated your 1 with some self aggrandizement thrown in and pretended that it’s a separate item.
“Does that not just empower the abusers and the oppressors of women?”
I have no idea. I suspect that defending forcing women to wear a burka or chador has much the same effect.
FYI, you considering CT conservative tells me that you’re just quote mining with no regard for your source.
Perhaps they sincerely believed that they did the right thing, but were mistaken.
The woman chose to go to them for their opinion, they gave their opinion. She chose her course of action and they chose theirs based on their church discipline. I’m not seeing this massive sin.
Another news story about another abused woman at his church:
In a complaint filed Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, lawyers for Lorraine Zielinski said she went to leaders at the megachurch in LA’s Sun Valley neighborhood, where MacArthur is the longtime pastor, seeking counseling for her troubled marriage and was told her conversations would be kept confidential.
According to the complaint, she told counselors she was afraid for her safety and the safety of her daughter, alleging that her then-husband was physically abusive. Her lawyers said church leaders pressured Zielinski to drop her request for a legal separation.
When Zielinski tried to resign as a church member, pastors put her under church discipline for failing to follow their counsel, according to the complaint. They also allegedly told her to either come to a meeting with church pastors or details of her counseling would be made public to the congregation.
“When Plaintiff did not attend the meeting, GCC made good on its threat and shared information gained through confidential communications relating to her marriage with GCC membership,” according to the complaint. “GCC also misrepresented parts of these communications, painting Plaintiff as a bad actor in the marriage and the party at fault for the marital dispute. GCC also omitted Plaintiff’s husband’s desire to remarry and dissolve the marriage.”
Again, we all do. Or should. Telling an abused woman to stay with her abusive husband is wrong. AND, publicly shaming her for leaving him and daring to disagree with the patriarchy's "decision" - abusing God to try to force compliance - is even worse. It's a great evil to use and abuse God, speaking for God, telling the abused and oppressed to comply.
Do you disagree?
Do you agree that the slavery-supporting pastors and religions were morally wrong to tell enslaved and oppressed people to go along with their masters' wishes/demands/abuse?
If not, can you understand how morally rational people would find those positions to be irrational, unjust and evil?
Why is it not a mistake?
Are you serious? Do you not understand the history of oppression of women by men and religious men? The corrosive and abusive abuse of power by religious men to keep women in line?
Look, MAYBE 1,000 years ago - or even 200 years ago - when an abusive, oppressive patriarchy was more common and accepted (at least by the abusers and oppressors), MAYBE then people could have honestly not understood how evil abuse of wives and children was. MAYBE, even 70 years ago. But it's not a secret anymore. Of course, abusing women and children is wrong - evil. And of course, telling women to stay in abusive marriages is wrong. And of course, trying to use God to shame women into submission is wrong. Morally reasoning adults recognize this.
Do you not? If not, can you understand how other morally reasoning adults find that to be part of the problem of the Bible as rulebook tradition?
Was there intent to harm the woman?
It doesn't matter. IF one is so ignorant of oppression and abuse that they don't understand that it's wrong to tell an abused woman to stay in the marriage and do so with no evil intent (and I'm willing to bet there was no evil intent - any more than there was evil intent in slave owners oftentimes), that doesn't give them a pass.
At some point, one needs to wake up to moral reasoning. Ignorance of moral behavior - and oppressive behavior, at that - is not a defense.
Divorce is not always an option, either—Scripture does not automatically permit divorce in the case of a physically abusive husband...
If a violence-prone husband becomes agitated and abusive, the wife should remove herself from danger, by leaving the home if necessary. God has promised that He will not test us beyond our ability to endure, but will always make a way of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13). Sometimes escape is the only way. If you have children and they are in danger, take them someplace where you will be secure until you feel you may safely come back.
He allows that an abused woman CAN leave an unsafe/abusive situation and let him cool off before "safely coming back..." but even that piece of shit "advice" only shows he doesn't understand abusive men. Abusive men don't just stop being abusive, outside of some kind of intervention. And an abused wife would be foolish to think "well, he's cooled off... I'm safe now..."
Also, the Bible-as-rulebook legalists fail to think through their own reasoning. People like MacArthur "allows" that God allows for a wife to seek a divorce for cases of infidelity, but MacArthur limits that infidelity to cheating on the wife with another woman. OF COURSE, abusing your family IS infidelity to the family. Even for the legalists, it's shitty hermeneutics.
Also, the MacArthurs of the world often cite the Malachi passage as a proof text that "God hates divorce!" But I'm told a better, more scripturally faithful rendering of that passage is
"The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,”
This aligns with the reality that we know of the abuse and oppression of women in patriarchal societies where a divorce for a woman is often a death penalty - it is a violence against women. The point being that God is opposed to violence - and specifically of violence towards the oppressed - not that divorce is naughty according to God.
But all of that's an aside for a deeper, more well-rounded and textually/contextually apt study of the Bible.
So, the crux of your attack on McArthur is that in two cases women went to someone at his church for counseling, and didn't like the counsel that was given. Were these women prevented from exercising their agency or legal rights? Were they prevented from involving authorities? I fail to see the problem. Agree or not, their church clearly approaches marital counseling from a particular position, which should have been familiar to any church member and was certainly not mandatory. I understand that you don't like how things went, and I guess we could wait for the lawsuit instead of jumping to conclusions. I get it, you're looking for dirt and you've found something.
"Do you disagree?"
With your unproven hunch, yes.
"Do you agree that the slavery-supporting pastors and religions were morally wrong to tell enslaved and oppressed people to go along with their masters' wishes/demands/abuse?"
I'm loathe to tell Paul that he's wrong on this topic, but you're free to if you'd like. In general, I'd agree that using the pulpit to try to pressure congregants to engage in or support any governmental position is problematic at best. Yet this is apples to rutabagas and just one more diversion.
"If not, can you understand how morally rational people would find those positions to be irrational, unjust and evil?"
I an understand that people find all kinds of things "unjust and evil", that doesn't mean that they objectively are.
"Are you serious?"
Yes. If a church is using a "Biblical counseling" model then there is scriptural justification to advocate for attempting to save the relationship as the first step. I'm not agreeing with that, just noting that it's a position that can be supported Biblically, and one that people could be mistaken about.
"Do you not understand the history of oppression of women by men and religious men? The corrosive and abusive abuse of power by religious men to keep women in line?"
Stupid and irrelevant, but by all means let your prejudice run free.
"Do you not? If not, can you understand how other morally reasoning adults find that to be part of the problem of the Bible as rulebook tradition?"
I don't know or care what you and your imaginary friends "find".
"It doesn't matter. "
That's quite the claim, unproven, but quite the claim.
I get it, you're on a crusade to slander and defame someone who has a decades long legacy of ministry because you disagree with them. It's good to know that disagreeing with Dan is now a sin, and that Dan knows that YHWH is powerless.
It's cute that you think that your grasp of scripture is greater than McArthur.
Too bad you've chose this hateful, graceless, response to his death.
Thank you though, I appreciate you setting the precedent of engaging in this sort of graceless slander of the dead before they've even been put to rest, and to know that expressing condolences is beyond you. You opened this floodgate, so when others follow your example you'll need to deal with it.
"Is encouraging an abused spouse of an abusive man a sin? How so?"
No. Is encouraging divorce as anything but a last resort? Is there a difference between encouraging/advising/recommending and demanding or forcing? Is agreeing to abide by the discipline of a group or organization that one joins voluntarily, that can be left at will, a sin?
"Is not her vow what's most important?"
To be fair, her husband likely broke the vow long before she did, and I'd suggest that her safety is probably equally as important. I would agree, in theory, that attempts to reconcile should be the first option.
"I didn't read Dan's link, and I don't intend to do so. But how do we know just how abusive the abuse was and if the woman has an especially low tolerance for anything less that total love and happiness?"
The first link is CT which has has grown increasingly biased of late and it appears to be based on a single source, which usually isn't a good thing.
"Dan has a freakin' lumber yard in his eye!"
Yeah, he's pretty complimentary of Muslims and look how well they treat their wives.
I'm loathe to tell Paul that he's wrong on this topic,
And as repeatedly noted, this is precisely part of your problem of your personal human traditions that elevate the Bible to some sort of rulings book, letting ancient traditions overwhelm your moral common sense.
For my part, NO, of course, I don't mind telling ANYONE who tells slaves to stay enslaved and subservient to their "owners" and that would include Paul if he were saying that today. Enslaving human beings is a clear moral atrocity, EVEN IF Paul and other biblical people 2000-6000 years okay accepted it in THEIR ancient culture.
WE ARE BETTER informed/educated on moral issues now. As Jesus noted, we CAN do things better than even Jesus could, in the context of his time. This is part of the problem of the great moral atrocities of magic rule book religionists.
that confirms your biased, prejudiced views of “conservative” Christian leaders as the focus of your comment. Your graceless inability to do anything but focus on what you perceive as evil
Thousands of people really appreciated Robert E Lee. That doesn't mean we lionize him. My views of conservative religionists and their sexist/patriarchal positions are not biased or prejudiced. They're correct. It's not like I'm making up something about their positions. Modern conservative patriarchal religionists DO believe what they believe, in the notion of not divorcing even in the case of abuse or molestation. They DO use (at least in the case of MacArthur) in shaming and shunning women for daring to disagree with them, even publicly releasing their private information. That's just the reality. If you asked people from his church, they confirm that is, indeed what they believe is acceptable.
It's not, even if your personal human religious tradition tells you it's okay. And this is not an irrelevant "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" kind of question. It's a human rights question.
I'm sorry you don't see that. MacArthur clearly didn't either.
"We have an obligation to try to understand moral and immoral actions and, especially in cases where great oppressive harm is being done, to stand against that oppression."
Says the guy who defends the practice of abortion, where great oppressive harm...murder...is being done by the thousands constantly.
Dan's "compassion" for "the oppressed" is not subjective or arbitrary. It's distinctly a political statement, with "the oppressed" being those who fall short of the law and are held accountable, such as illegal aliens, and interfere with "women's rights", like the child a woman conceived as two examples. Once again...lumber yard. That's another good nickname for Dan: LumberYard.
Dan’s compassion to the oppressed is absolutely selective when it comes to what he’s vocal about. He’ll sit silently by as millions of women are oppressed and harmed, while mouthing nice pablum about the philosophy built on oppression of women and enemies, while blithely insisting that he’s against all oppression.
He has no problem convincing himself that he’s anti oppression, while supporting (or remaining silent) about some of the most oppressive people in history.
As you can’t prove your hunches, it seems absurd to say that your hunches are “correct”. As I contrast this conversation with the “good people” conversation, your hypocrisy and double standards becomes more apparent.
You’ve cherry picked one thing about McArthur that you disagree with, elevated that disagreement to a sin, and decided that this one thing magically outweighs any and every other good thing McArthur did.
You finally answered my question about what % of not good works, prevents someone from being a “good person”.
28 comments:
He was one of my favorite teachers. He's gotten his reward for his faithfulness.
Mine as well.
Hopefully, he had repented of this...
https://www.christianitytoday.com/2023/02/grace-community-church-elder-biblical-counseling-abuse/
There is so much about this short comment that is bizarre.
1. What exactly is the sin that should be "repented" of?
2. Should individuals "repent" for the sins of others?
3. Your first response to the death of someone who was who's done significant good for The Church is to dredge up one incident from the past.
4. Do you take this same tone with every pastor that dies, or just the ones you disagree with?
If this is how you show grace, you clearly need repentance of your own. As you constantly harp on, humans are imperfect and "make mistakes", yet somehow your tolerance for imperfection and "mistakes" varies depending on how much you agree with their theological and political position.
Dan demonstrates something that seems to pervade the ASPL. When a prominent ASPL leader dies, you routinely see conservatives who's first response to to offer condolences. Dan's first response is this graceless bullshit. Noting that CT is hardly an unbiased source of objective journalism, is a topic for another time.
Of course, I said not a single thing bad about this man. I simply noted the reality of his graceless, sexist and oppressive positions and sincerely hoped he repented for the harm done by his harmful, oppressive positions.
Much worse has been said about saints like Jimmy Carter and John Lewis.
Should I NOT hope that he at some point repented for his awful behavior and words?
I normally keep quiet at the passing of people with awful positions. I'm not feeling it this week, but still, it's not an attack or anything.
Noting the actual harm done by people is not an attack.
It IS a rather amazing thing that you choose to attack the ultra-conservative CT in your defense of oppressive attitudes and actions.
There is, of course, nothing graceless in sincerely hoping someone had repented. Do YOU think there is?
To answer your questions...
"1. What exactly is the sin that should be "repented" of?"
The atrocious sin of telling an abused woman she should stay with her abuser. How do you not know this?
"2. Should individuals "repent" for the sins of others?"
No.
But people who promote exist, misogynistic and oppressive actions - and who do so while claiming to speak for God! - should repent for their atrocious actions.
Hopefully Dan's political preferences and "progressive" "Christian" "pastors" and congregants will repent of their many sins.
Technically you didn’t, you just chose one incident that confirms your biased, prejudiced views of “conservative” Christian leaders as the focus of your comment. Your graceless inability to do anything but focus on what you perceive as evil, in the immediate wake of someone’s death shows nothing but hatred.
Let’s ignore the thousands of people who were positively impacted by McArthur and focus on one “negative” example.
If that’s the grace you embrace, then it’s foreign to any common notion of grace.
Craig
Who defined that action as an “atrocious sin”? Why is it not a mistake? Was there intent to harm the woman? Are you privy to all of the details or just what you gleaned from one CT article?
Really? It sounds like you are demanding that McArthur repent for someone else’s sin.
Who decides whether that was an “atrocious sin” or a mistake? Why does one who commits that particular “atrocious sin” forfeit grace? Why would you assume, what objective data have you seen, that leads you to jump to the conclusion that there has been no repentance? Why, is your first response to the death of someone who’s served YHWH so faithfully for so many years to immediately dredge up something negative?
Yet you seem to be demanding that Mc Arthur repent for something he may or may not have done, based on your unproven hunch about something that you think should be an “atrocious sin”. That you subjectively consider something “atrocious”, doesn’t mean that your hunch is correct.
Dan would never call for one of his pet pastors to repent of encouraging a child to mutilate themselves or a mother to kill their child.
What a graceless, atrocious, attitude to display toward someone who’s just died.
Is encouraging an abused spouse of an abusive man a sin? How so? Is not her vow what's most important? This sad story speaks to the importance of long, chaste courtships in order to determine the true measure of one's intended.
This is one of those issues which comes up in most every divorce. If a couple is taking the traditional, stereotypical vows before saying "I do", one of them is "for better or worse". I'm unaware of such vows having limitations in either direction on any of the vows and I'm sure no one will be put off if the positive side of those vows are off the charts. But the slightest negative compels many to say to themselves, "I know I vowed to take this man/woman for poorer, in sickness and for worse, but I never thought it would be this bad."
I didn't read Dan's link, and I don't intend to do so. But how do we know just how abusive the abuse was and if the woman has an especially low tolerance for anything less that total love and happiness?
I think guiding one to remain true to their vows is the proper counseling every time. That's the bottom line and the standard on which any Christian counseling should be based. To dare say McArthur needs to repent from encouraging even this sad woman to do the hard thing for God's glory is abhorrent coming from someone who no doubt digs "pastors" who are women promoting, celebrating, defending and enabling homosexuality, abortion, open borders, and sticking their hands in the purses of the wealthy.
Dan has a freakin' lumber yard in his eye!
Craig asked:
Who decides whether that was an “atrocious sin” or a mistake?
ALL moral reasoning adults do. We have an obligation to try to understand moral and immoral actions and, especially in cases where great oppressive harm is being done, to stand against that oppression. I wish that MacArthur had chosen to do that. I wish someone at his church had called him out on it. And I wish that moral reasoning adults today will learn from MacArthur's grave mistakes.
Are you suggesting it is NOT a great immoral atrocity to tell an abused woman to stay with her husband and, indeed, to shame her for considering leaving an abuser?
If so, what's wrong with you? WHY would you make that suggestion?
Why does one who commits that particular “atrocious sin” forfeit grace?
They don't. I didn't say he forfeited grace. I don't believe that. Rather, I believe there are serious consequences for those who do not stand up for and with the least of these, as Jesus literally taught.
Do you disagree and think it's OKAY to not stand with oppressed, abused women?
Why would you assume, what objective data have you seen, that leads you to jump to the conclusion that there has been no repentance?
In reading stories about this, including stories from conservative Christians, I've seen it noted that he and his church never apologized. Maybe those people were wrong. Do you THINK, in your head, that somewhere MacArthur secretly apologized for this? Or do you think he thought he did nothing wrong?
Why, is your first response to the death of someone who’s served YHWH so faithfully for so many years to immediately dredge up something negative?
1. I do not believe that anyone who has helped abusers and allied with them, while oppressing the abused HAS served God faithfully. I think the suggestion is a mockery of God and God's great Love and Justice.
2. Given that I side with this abused woman against her oppressors, do you think I should remain silent to allow people to "honor" such a man, in spite of significant, antibiblical failings? Does that not just empower the abusers and the oppressors of women?
While waiting to see if you answer, here's some of the (at least one) news story about the oppressive actions of MacArthur and his church...
"The elders had
publicly disciplined a woman for refusing to take back her [abusive] husband.
As it turned out, the woman’s fears proved true, and
her husband went to prison for child molestation and abuse.
The church never retracted its discipline or apologized
in the 20 years since.
As a lawyer and one of four officers on the elder board at Grace Community Church (GCC), Cho was asked to study the case. He tried to convince the church’s leaders to reconsider and at least privately make it right. He said
pastor John MacArthur told him to “forget it.”
When Cho continued to call the elders to “do justice” on the woman’s behalf, he said
he was asked to walk back his conclusions or resign.
From the aforementioned conservative Christianity Today article.
More:
Though Cho stepped down quietly, he continued to hear from other women from his former church. They had also been doubted, dismissed, and implicitly or explicitly threatened with discipline while seeking refuge from their abusive marriages.
It's not even a one-off "mistake," the patriarchal patriarchs made. It was a series of deliberate choices that went on and on. And of course, it follows naturally from the Bible as rulings book theology that so infects so much of human tradition in the conservative church.
Tell me clearly: IF a woman is being abused by her husband (or her children), do you think she should leave him?
IF she leaves the abuser and chooses to divorce him, and IF her church publicly condemns her for that divorce, who is wrong, the church or the woman?
If you don't think a Christian (or other) woman should reasonably, morally choose to leave an abuser in good faith and without a guilty conscience, that's on you, dear man. I'm just here to let you know, it's not morally or emotionally healthy. It's not just. It's not Christ-ian. It is sick and depraved, this patriarchy that places a marriage above a woman's own interests and safety and, worse, which abuses the woman who does decide to make the rational and moral choice.
“ALL moral reasoning adults do.”
Yet there is nowhere near universal agreement on your hunch about this behavior. We don’t even really know if you’ve accurately characterized it.
“Are you suggesting it is NOT a great immoral atrocity to tell an abused woman to stay with her husband and, indeed, to shame her for considering leaving an abuser?”
I’m suggesting nothing, as I don’t have access to enough information to do so. I am suggesting that this woman is an adult human with agency and the freedom to do as she saw fit.
“If so, what's wrong with you? WHY would you make that suggestion?”
Nothing, as I didn’t make any suggestion.
“They don’t”
Yet you choose not to embrace grace and operate based on assumptions about which you have no definitive knowledge.
“Do you disagree and think it's OKAY to not stand with oppressed, abused women?”
Sure, it’s irrelevant. Unless you are demanding that there in only one way to “stand with abused women “, and that your way is the only way. I
Why would you assume, what objective data have you seen, that leads you to jump to the conclusion that there has been
“Do you THINK, in your head, that somewhere MacArthur secretly apologized for this?”
I have no idea. I’ll simply note that you claim to have read stories, yet don’t provide links or use “real journalism” sources. “Or do you think he thought he did nothing wrong?”
Again, no idea. I’ve never met him or discussed this with him. I’m not prepared to make serious allegations with no hard data.
1. What a notion. What you believe (not what you know or what is proven) about one incident out of a decades long ministry is enough to ignore everything else someone has done. I’ll remember and be spplying this standard in the future.
2. Impressive, you merely restated your 1 with some self aggrandizement thrown in and pretended that it’s a separate item.
“Does that not just empower the abusers and the oppressors of women?”
I have no idea. I suspect that defending forcing women to wear a burka or chador has much the same effect.
It’s amusing when you get impatient.
FYI, you considering CT conservative tells me that you’re just quote mining with no regard for your source.
Perhaps they sincerely believed that they did the right thing, but were mistaken.
The woman chose to go to them for their opinion, they gave their opinion. She chose her course of action and they chose theirs based on their church discipline. I’m not seeing this massive sin.
Another news story about another abused woman at his church:
In a complaint filed Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, lawyers for Lorraine Zielinski said she went to leaders at the megachurch in LA’s Sun Valley neighborhood, where MacArthur is the longtime pastor, seeking counseling for her troubled marriage and was told her conversations would be kept confidential.
According to the complaint, she told counselors she was afraid for her safety and the safety of her daughter, alleging that her then-husband was physically abusive. Her lawyers said church leaders pressured Zielinski to drop her request for a legal separation.
When Zielinski tried to resign as a church member, pastors put her under church discipline for failing to follow their counsel, according to the complaint. They also allegedly told her to either come to a meeting with church pastors or details of her counseling would be made public to the congregation.
“When Plaintiff did not attend the meeting, GCC made good on its threat and shared information gained through confidential communications relating to her marriage with GCC membership,” according to the complaint. “GCC also misrepresented parts of these communications, painting Plaintiff as a bad actor in the marriage and the party at fault for the marital dispute. GCC also omitted Plaintiff’s husband’s desire to remarry and dissolve the marriage.”
https://signalscv.com/2025/07/woman-sues-church-claiming-it-wouldnt-let-her-leave/
To answer more of your questions:
Who defined that action as an “atrocious sin”?
Again, we all do. Or should. Telling an abused woman to stay with her abusive husband is wrong. AND, publicly shaming her for leaving him and daring to disagree with the patriarchy's "decision" - abusing God to try to force compliance - is even worse. It's a great evil to use and abuse God, speaking for God, telling the abused and oppressed to comply.
Do you disagree?
Do you agree that the slavery-supporting pastors and religions were morally wrong to tell enslaved and oppressed people to go along with their masters' wishes/demands/abuse?
If not, can you understand how morally rational people would find those positions to be irrational, unjust and evil?
Why is it not a mistake?
Are you serious? Do you not understand the history of oppression of women by men and religious men? The corrosive and abusive abuse of power by religious men to keep women in line?
Look, MAYBE 1,000 years ago - or even 200 years ago - when an abusive, oppressive patriarchy was more common and accepted (at least by the abusers and oppressors), MAYBE then people could have honestly not understood how evil abuse of wives and children was. MAYBE, even 70 years ago. But it's not a secret anymore. Of course, abusing women and children is wrong - evil. And of course, telling women to stay in abusive marriages is wrong. And of course, trying to use God to shame women into submission is wrong. Morally reasoning adults recognize this.
Do you not? If not, can you understand how other morally reasoning adults find that to be part of the problem of the Bible as rulebook tradition?
Was there intent to harm the woman?
It doesn't matter. IF one is so ignorant of oppression and abuse that they don't understand that it's wrong to tell an abused woman to stay in the marriage and do so with no evil intent (and I'm willing to bet there was no evil intent - any more than there was evil intent in slave owners oftentimes), that doesn't give them a pass.
At some point, one needs to wake up to moral reasoning. Ignorance of moral behavior - and oppressive behavior, at that - is not a defense.
Do you disagree?
John MacArthur on abusive husbands:
Divorce is not always an option, either—Scripture does not automatically permit divorce in the case of a physically abusive husband...
If a violence-prone husband becomes agitated and abusive, the wife should remove herself from danger, by leaving the home if necessary. God has promised that He will not test us beyond our ability to endure, but will always make a way of escape (1 Corinthians 10:13). Sometimes escape is the only way. If you have children and they are in danger, take them someplace where you will be secure until you feel you may safely come back.
He allows that an abused woman CAN leave an unsafe/abusive situation and let him cool off before "safely coming back..." but even that piece of shit "advice" only shows he doesn't understand abusive men. Abusive men don't just stop being abusive, outside of some kind of intervention. And an abused wife would be foolish to think "well, he's cooled off... I'm safe now..."
Also, the Bible-as-rulebook legalists fail to think through their own reasoning. People like MacArthur "allows" that God allows for a wife to seek a divorce for cases of infidelity, but MacArthur limits that infidelity to cheating on the wife with another woman. OF COURSE, abusing your family IS infidelity to the family. Even for the legalists, it's shitty hermeneutics.
Also, the MacArthurs of the world often cite the Malachi passage as a proof text that "God hates divorce!" But I'm told a better, more scripturally faithful rendering of that passage is
"The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,”
This aligns with the reality that we know of the abuse and oppression of women in patriarchal societies where a divorce for a woman is often a death penalty - it is a violence against women. The point being that God is opposed to violence - and specifically of violence towards the oppressed - not that divorce is naughty according to God.
But all of that's an aside for a deeper, more well-rounded and textually/contextually apt study of the Bible.
So, the crux of your attack on McArthur is that in two cases women went to someone at his church for counseling, and didn't like the counsel that was given. Were these women prevented from exercising their agency or legal rights? Were they prevented from involving authorities? I fail to see the problem. Agree or not, their church clearly approaches marital counseling from a particular position, which should have been familiar to any church member and was certainly not mandatory. I understand that you don't like how things went, and I guess we could wait for the lawsuit instead of jumping to conclusions. I get it, you're looking for dirt and you've found something.
"Do you disagree?"
With your unproven hunch, yes.
"Do you agree that the slavery-supporting pastors and religions were morally wrong to tell enslaved and oppressed people to go along with their masters' wishes/demands/abuse?"
I'm loathe to tell Paul that he's wrong on this topic, but you're free to if you'd like. In general, I'd agree that using the pulpit to try to pressure congregants to engage in or support any governmental position is problematic at best. Yet this is apples to rutabagas and just one more diversion.
"If not, can you understand how morally rational people would find those positions to be irrational, unjust and evil?"
I an understand that people find all kinds of things "unjust and evil", that doesn't mean that they objectively are.
"Are you serious?"
Yes. If a church is using a "Biblical counseling" model then there is scriptural justification to advocate for attempting to save the relationship as the first step. I'm not agreeing with that, just noting that it's a position that can be supported Biblically, and one that people could be mistaken about.
"Do you not understand the history of oppression of women by men and religious men? The corrosive and abusive abuse of power by religious men to keep women in line?"
Stupid and irrelevant, but by all means let your prejudice run free.
"Do you not? If not, can you understand how other morally reasoning adults find that to be part of the problem of the Bible as rulebook tradition?"
I don't know or care what you and your imaginary friends "find".
"It doesn't matter. "
That's quite the claim, unproven, but quite the claim.
"Do you disagree?"
With your subjective, hunches, yes.
I get it, you're on a crusade to slander and defame someone who has a decades long legacy of ministry because you disagree with them. It's good to know that disagreeing with Dan is now a sin, and that Dan knows that YHWH is powerless.
It's cute that you think that your grasp of scripture is greater than McArthur.
Too bad you've chose this hateful, graceless, response to his death.
Thank you though, I appreciate you setting the precedent of engaging in this sort of graceless slander of the dead before they've even been put to rest, and to know that expressing condolences is beyond you. You opened this floodgate, so when others follow your example you'll need to deal with it.
"Is encouraging an abused spouse of an abusive man a sin? How so?"
No. Is encouraging divorce as anything but a last resort? Is there a difference between encouraging/advising/recommending and demanding or forcing? Is agreeing to abide by the discipline of a group or organization that one joins voluntarily, that can be left at will, a sin?
"Is not her vow what's most important?"
To be fair, her husband likely broke the vow long before she did, and I'd suggest that her safety is probably equally as important. I would agree, in theory, that attempts to reconcile should be the first option.
"I didn't read Dan's link, and I don't intend to do so. But how do we know just how abusive the abuse was and if the woman has an especially low tolerance for anything less that total love and happiness?"
The first link is CT which has has grown increasingly biased of late and it appears to be based on a single source, which usually isn't a good thing.
"Dan has a freakin' lumber yard in his eye!"
Yeah, he's pretty complimentary of Muslims and look how well they treat their wives.
Craig:
I'm loathe to tell Paul that he's wrong on this topic,
And as repeatedly noted, this is precisely part of your problem of your personal human traditions that elevate the Bible to some sort of rulings book, letting ancient traditions overwhelm your moral common sense.
For my part, NO, of course, I don't mind telling ANYONE who tells slaves to stay enslaved and subservient to their "owners" and that would include Paul if he were saying that today. Enslaving human beings is a clear moral atrocity, EVEN IF Paul and other biblical people 2000-6000 years okay accepted it in THEIR ancient culture.
WE ARE BETTER informed/educated on moral issues now. As Jesus noted, we CAN do things better than even Jesus could, in the context of his time. This is part of the problem of the great moral atrocities of magic rule book religionists.
Good luck, brother.
Craig...
that confirms your biased, prejudiced views of “conservative” Christian leaders as the focus of your comment. Your graceless inability to do anything but focus on what you perceive as evil
Thousands of people really appreciated Robert E Lee. That doesn't mean we lionize him. My views of conservative religionists and their sexist/patriarchal positions are not biased or prejudiced. They're correct. It's not like I'm making up something about their positions. Modern conservative patriarchal religionists DO believe what they believe, in the notion of not divorcing even in the case of abuse or molestation. They DO use (at least in the case of MacArthur) in shaming and shunning women for daring to disagree with them, even publicly releasing their private information. That's just the reality. If you asked people from his church, they confirm that is, indeed what they believe is acceptable.
It's not, even if your personal human religious tradition tells you it's okay. And this is not an irrelevant "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin" kind of question. It's a human rights question.
I'm sorry you don't see that. MacArthur clearly didn't either.
"We have an obligation to try to understand moral and immoral actions and, especially in cases where great oppressive harm is being done, to stand against that oppression."
Says the guy who defends the practice of abortion, where great oppressive harm...murder...is being done by the thousands constantly.
Dan's "compassion" for "the oppressed" is not subjective or arbitrary. It's distinctly a political statement, with "the oppressed" being those who fall short of the law and are held accountable, such as illegal aliens, and interfere with "women's rights", like the child a woman conceived as two examples. Once again...lumber yard. That's another good nickname for Dan: LumberYard.
As always your hubris is refreshing. It’s good to see that your arrogance and hubris remain intact and that you place yourself above everyone else.
Dan’s compassion to the oppressed is absolutely selective when it comes to what he’s vocal about. He’ll sit silently by as millions of women are oppressed and harmed, while mouthing nice pablum about the philosophy built on oppression of women and enemies, while blithely insisting that he’s against all oppression.
He has no problem convincing himself that he’s anti oppression, while supporting (or remaining silent) about some of the most oppressive people in history.
As you can’t prove your hunches, it seems absurd to say that your hunches are “correct”. As I contrast this conversation with the “good people” conversation, your hypocrisy and double standards becomes more apparent.
You’ve cherry picked one thing about McArthur that you disagree with, elevated that disagreement to a sin, and decided that this one thing magically outweighs any and every other good thing McArthur did.
You finally answered my question about what % of not good works, prevents someone from being a “good person”.
Post a Comment