A response to John MacArthur
While scrolling through my social media feed, I came across a clip from a recent sermon by Dr. Charlie Dates of Salem Baptist Church in Chicago, Illinois. In this clip, he addressed Pastor John MacArthur of Grace Community Church in California. A couple of weeks ago, during a Q&A session at his church, MacArthur made a controversial statement, proclaiming that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was not a Christian. (The clip can be found here.) MacArthur further suggested that honoring Dr. King had led to the demise of an organization named "Together for the Gospel.” Similarly to Dr. Dates, I find MacArthur's comments troubling for a few reasons:
Firstly, there is the issue of orthodoxy versus orthopraxy. MacArthur, being a Calvinist, likely believes that John Calvin was a true Christian and is now enjoying eternal life with God. However, MacArthur denies the Christianity of Dr. King because he deems him unorthodox and believes he did not live an honorable Christian life. It would be helpful for MacArthur to acknowledge that theological orthodoxy cannot be solely determined by whether or not it aligns with his own beliefs. Furthermore, MacArthur must reconcile the fact that while orthodoxy may have been lacking for Dr. King, it was also lacking for John Calvin. Historical records show that many people were killed under Calvin's encouragement, as he considered certain baptizing movements during the Reformation to be worthy of death. It is unlikely that MacArthur would view Calvin's actions as holy or becoming of a Christian man, yet he still considers Calvin a Christian. It would be fair for MacArthur to extend the same grace to Dr. King, who espoused both orthodoxy (adopting the orthodox “God of his father” a year before his death) and signifcant orthopraxy, indicating that he was indeed a Christian.
The second issue is MacArthur's racial insensitivity. As an educated, experienced, and prominent preacher, it is surprising that MacArthur did not seize the opportunity during his answer to acknowledge the troubled racial history of our country and the need for reconciliation. He mentioned that honoring Dr. King at a previous conference led to the demise of an organization, without recognizing the importance of reckoning with our past. Dr. King dedicated his life to fighting for racial justice and equality. MacArthur's failure to address this issue demonstrates, at the very least, a racial insensitivity and, at worst, deeply ingrained racism.
Thirdly, MacArthur appears to be grossly out of touch. With his extensive body of work, including books, sermons, and conferences, it is difficult to comprehend how he is not aware of the current cultural climate and how to effectively engage with it. Regardless of his personal views on Dr. King, MacArthur's tone and choice of words automatically alienate anyone who is sensitive to the struggles faced by marginalized and underserved communities in our country and the world. If MacArthur genuinely aims to be helpful to the church, which I want to believe he does, he did not give himself any advantage by speaking in the manner he did.
Please read Justin Giboney’s article on the subject for an exceptionally well-written response including a balanced perspective on political liberalism.
