# Justin Peters interviews Phil Johnson about John MacArthur's Lavish Lifestyle



## pmachapman (Feb 18, 2021)

There has been some speculation about JMac floating around the Internet, fuelled by an article and various Youtubers commenting on it.

This interview was posted earlier today, and I found it to be an interesting insight into the GTY/GCC world.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## bookslover (Feb 18, 2021)

Thanks for posting this. Very interesting and informative.


----------



## sandrajune (Feb 27, 2021)

Maybe Justin should talk to Julie Roys to gain a more comprehensive perspective.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 27, 2021)

A man is not going to bite the hand that feeds him.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 27, 2021)

While I do have concerns with highly paid celebrity pastors and legacy ministries, what is the purpose of the Roys site? How do they evaluate doing a story? It looks a bit like scandal hunting. With the guy still not out of the woods they did a report with a lot of questions and no answers returned that seem to imply there's something wrong with the gofundme for Voddie Baucham. Do they report on all such medical gofundme drives for ministers without the means or is it because of the amount, who he is? I thought it was poor taste to not wait at least instead of doing a report and getting it out before the guy had gotten stabilized and out of the woods at least.

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## ZackF (Feb 27, 2021)

NaphtaliPress said:


> While I do have concerns with highly paid celebrity pastors and legacy ministries, what is the purpose of the Roys site? How do they evaluate doing a story? It looks a bit like scandal hunting. With the guy still not out of the woods they did a report with a lot of questions and no answers returned that seem to imply there's something wrong with the gofundme for Voddie Baucham. Do they report on all such medical gofundme drives for ministers without the means or is it because of the amount, who he is? I thought it was poor taste to not wait at least instead of doing a report and getting it out before the guy had gotten stabilized and out of the woods at least.


My thoughts are similar overall. I'd like to see a methodology and a statement of faith. I think she conflates having wealth with necessarily being a prosperity gospel advocate. That is fallacious. If she has in mind a ministry disqualifying threshold, of income or net worth, that needs to be declared. 

Also, I don't think Roys can be summarily dismissed. She and her team seem to be a significant step up from the typical drive-by discernment bloggers. Having a board gives her some accountability. There are also many articles on her site that most of us here can appreciate. There seem to be folks other than Calvinist that she investigates unlike some discernment (accountable to no one) bloggers who are obsessed with the Reformed.

In this case, I can understand Phil and JM thinking they might just be Cathy Newmaned or London Timesed (another more recent bad faith interview of Jordan Peterson) in an interview. Phil did give a couple of examples where she didn't do her homework. She appears to have JM targeted. Personal wealth, Covid or whatever it goes in the JM section. No one wants to subject themselves to that. If she would clean that up and put her own cards on the table, Phil or JM may talk to her.


----------



## arapahoepark (Feb 27, 2021)

NaphtaliPress said:


> While I do have concerns with highly paid celebrity pastors and legacy ministries, what is the purpose of the Roys site? How do they evaluate doing a story? It looks a bit like scandal hunting. With the guy still not out of the woods they did a report with a lot of questions and no answers returned that seem to imply there's something wrong with the gofundme for Voddie Baucham. Do they report on all such medical gofundme drives for ministers without the means or is it because of the amount, who he is? I thought it was poor taste to not wait at least instead of doing a report and getting it out before the guy had gotten stabilized and out of the woods at least.


A lot of discernment sites are like this any more...Not sure about Roys but, everyone is waiting for someone to mess up somewhere. I avoid them now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 28, 2021)

arapahoepark said:


> A lot of discernment sites are like this any more...Not sure about Roys but, everyone is waiting for someone to mess up somewhere. I avoid them now.


Roys is more fire starter than light bearer. Roys is wasting her skills at this point.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 28, 2021)

Roys is better than most. I haven't kept up with her since she exposed the Doug Phillips sex scandal.


----------



## A.Joseph (Feb 28, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Roys is better than most. I haven't kept up with her since she exposed the Doug Phillips sex scandal.


She’s fishing now.... Becoming a glorified Wartburg Watch but more trivial in her content.

But check it out for yourself (if you are inclined) don’t go by me....


----------



## Smeagol (Feb 28, 2021)

So this Roys is the best at publicly blogging about the sins of others and even those bearing the title of brother/sister in Christ?..... Not a title I would want.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## ChristianLibertarian (Feb 28, 2021)

How a pastor spends the money the elders of his church have paid him is no one's business. Calling someone's lifestyle "lavish" is little more than an ad hominem attack, one with little to no Biblical basis. It is nothing but an unnecessary judgment based in covetousness.


----------



## Edward (Feb 28, 2021)

I don't know if I'll make it through an hour, but I will observe two things:

Lavish lifestyle is a relative term. Some folks on this board, based on their circumstances, might consider the same lifestyle to be lavish, comfortable, or frugal. 

I'm not sure what "living like a millionaire" means. I knew one that had a flip phone when most folks had smart phones. He finally upgraded to a used iPhone. The most expensive cars in the church parking lot frequently don't have the richest owners.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Feb 28, 2021)

Great interview and good information. I like the work Justin Peters does as well as the folks at Grace

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ChristianLibertarian (Feb 28, 2021)

Edward said:


> I don't know if I'll make it through an hour, but I will observe two things:
> 
> Lavish lifestyle is a relative term. Some folks on this board, based on their circumstances, might consider the same lifestyle to be lavish, comfortable, or frugal.
> 
> I'm not sure what "living like a millionaire" means. I knew one that had a flip phone when most folks had smart phones. He finally upgraded to a used iPhone. The most expensive cars in the church parking lot frequently don't have the richest owners.


Since when is it a sin to be a millionaire or live like one (whatever that means) if you happen to be a millionaire? Numerous believers in scripture were incredibly wealthy: Job, Abraham, Issac, Jacob, David, Solomon, Lydia etc. There's no sin in being wealthy, only in trusting in riches over God.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 28, 2021)

Grant said:


> So this Roys is the best at publicly blogging about the sins of others and even those bearing the title of brother/sister in Christ?..... Not a title I would want.



That's literally the definition of every single discernment blogger: JD Hall, Reformation Charlotte, Roys. That's why I normally avoid all discernment bloggers, though Roys is less obnoxious than the other two. I'm not endorsing her claim. I am completely indifferent to JMac and have been for about five years. On one hand, complaining about other people's wealth is Marxism (and so I expect Big Eva to start any time soon). On the other hand, this is endemic of Christian Celebrity culture.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JimmyH (Feb 28, 2021)

pmachapman said:


> There has been some speculation about JMac floating around the Internet, fuelled by an article and various Youtubers commenting on it.
> 
> This interview was posted earlier today, and I found it to be an interesting insight into the GTY/GCC world.


Thank you for posting this informative video. I first heard J Mac in 1984 preaching a sermon called 'Examine Yourself' that cut me to the quick.

I had read a blog post a week or two ago with the accusations of inordinate wealth/covetousness, and thought about posting it here on PB for opinions.

Spoke with my pastor about it and he dismissed it. I also thought about it in perspective.

While I don't agree with some of his theology, John MacArthur has been preaching the gospel for over 50 years, written so many books, and will go down in

the annals of church history as one of the great men of God along with Charles Hadden Spurgeon, and Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

If Bernie Sanders can excuse his millions, though he is a not so humble congressman, by best selling books he's written, how much more is 

John MacArthur worth to the Kingdom!

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## TheInquirer (Mar 1, 2021)

So what biblical principles apply to how much a pastor, celebrity or not, should earn from his ministry?


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 2, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> So what biblical principles apply to how much a pastor, celebrity or not, should earn from his ministry?



Biblically speaking, wealth (even great wealth) is not in itself sinful for a man of God (Joseph, David, Daniel). So, it is wrong to assume that a pastor that is wealthy must be guilty of some moral failure. A brief search online for how much a pastor should be paid centers on a few basic questions about the size of the church, the cost of living in a given area, the education and experience of the pastor, and the number of years he has served. And while these matters vary greatly, it is easy to see that John MacArthur ranks very high in all of these considerations.

It goes without saying that John MacArthur has been a unique gift to the Church in general, but especially to the congregation there in Sun Valley, CA. He has served this congregation faithfully since _1969!_ That's fifty-two years. Very few ministers can claim anything close to that. But it must also be noted, that under his pastorate, the church's ministry has continuously increased and broadened, and that to the furtherance of the biblical Gospel! He has sown a profound spiritual good to the church there, should it be thought blameworthy by us if they sow to him much temporal good? (1 Cor. 9:11)

With all that said, every pastor must jealously guard against anything that would prejudice his name and undermine his ministry. And sometimes that means a man of God forgoing things, which in any other vocation, would be perfectly acceptable. Not because he is obligated to, but for the cause of Christ...

Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel. But I have used none of these things: neither have I written these things, that it should be so done unto me: for it were better for me to die, than that any man should make my glorying void. For though I preach the gospel, I have nothing to glory of: for necessity is laid upon me; yea, woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel! For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. What is my reward then? Verily that, when I preach the gospel, I may make the gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the gospel.—1 Cor. 9:13-18​
So, am I offended by John MacArthur's standard of living? Not in the least! But that doesn't mean that he shouldn't be. This is something every minister of Gospel must wrestle with.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## pmachapman (Mar 2, 2021)

I think Justin Peters was very apt when he opened with Proverbs 18:17.

There is often a race in publishing content online to be the first to "break" a story (much like print media I suppose), and the racy nature of exposing others' sins will result in lots of clicks, ad revenue, and publicity for the journalist involved.

I personally think that the new crop of discernment bloggers do need to be more gracious in their treatment of people such as John MacArthur, or whoever else they decide to expose without having raised matters through the appropriate ecclesiastical or civil courts.

I can only imagine what they would have written about Charles Spurgeon (and I imagine some probably did in Victorian Britain):

*Shock! Wealthy London Mega-Pastor Holidays on the Med while wife stays home with the kids in bed! Is this how a man of God should act!?!?!*

We all know, of course, the truth that Charles Spurgeon lived on a modest income, and gave away his massive royalties. A holiday as far away from the pollution of Industrial Age London in Menton (with other Godly men who encouraged him) was a blessing from God so that he could have the strength to serve as he did.

Finally, I think it is difficult for us "have-nots" to grasp when churches have wealthy congregant "haves", who wish to express their love for God by donating assets, such as land or cars to churches or pastors. I know very closely a pastor who on retirement was gifted the large manse (with a very small mortgage I think to renovate some of it) in a very expensive part of one of the world's most expensive cities. The church could do this, because the many congregants had been blessed by his ministry, some of whom were very wealthy. Should the poor pastor in a neighbouring suburb or city look enviously on this act of kindness? Obviously not. In the same vein, I know of ministers who have given up wealthy churches and generous pension funds to minster in a new, poor denomination, foregoing many earthly comforts. I can attest that all of these pastors are seeking to serve God with all of their strength and resources.

At this time I am content to solely discern whether or not the Fruit of the Spirit and Call of Ministry is evident in the life of the pastor (as I believe is true for John MacArthur), rather than whether their finances match my definition of "pious living". Thankfully, God sees the heart and chequebook clearly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 2, 2021)

Finances and how we use them ARE a part of pious living.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## pmachapman (Mar 2, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> Finances and how we use them ARE a part of pious living.


I don't deny that, I guess more my point is that it is hard to judge this from the outside. The constraints my family lives under in our pursuit to place all things under Christ's subjection (not saying we are all there yet...) are not requirements I judge others for not following.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 2, 2021)

We often use Joel Osteen's lavish lifestyle as an argument against him. Why not Macarthur then? Because he spouts halfway decent doctrine? What if he employs and pays his own relatives more than they are worth on a regular basis? Oh, but he has a good commentary!

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (Mar 2, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> We often use Joel Osteen's lavish lifestyle as an argument against him. Why not Macarthur then? Because he spouts halfway decent doctrine? What if he employs and pays his own relatives more than they are worth on a regular basis? Oh, but he has a good commentary!


Because Osteen is something we call an apple, and MacArthur an orange.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2 | Funny 1


----------



## ChristianLibertarian (Mar 2, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> We often use Joel Osteen's lavish lifestyle as an argument against him. Why not Macarthur then? Because he spouts halfway decent doctrine? What if he employs and pays his own relatives more than they are worth on a regular basis? Oh, but he has a good commentary!


Osteen is a heretic peddling heresy and making millions off peddling same. It's not the riches that are the problem, it's the heresy that leads to the riches that's at issue. The fact that MacArthur may be well paid or may have made money off of his books is irrelevant in light of the fact that his books are generally Biblically sound.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 2, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> We often use Joel Osteen's lavish lifestyle as an argument against him. Why not Macarthur then? Because he spouts halfway decent doctrine? What if he employs and pays his own relatives more than they are worth on a regular basis? Oh, but he has a good commentary!


If the argument against Osteen is that he lives a lavish lifestyle then that person is likely not a Christian or is covetous. If a Christian is arguing against Osteen is should be because of his heresy and that he does not preach the gospel and is leading millions to hell. His money is not leading people to hell, his false teaching is.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Mar 2, 2021)

I don't follow the man, and I know very little about his exact d.i.s.p.y thinking. But I did find this page on a quick search:



John MacArthur and Dispensationalism



_it is obvious God promised a future kingdom to Israel. And when somebody comes along and says all the promises of the kingdom to Israel are fulfilled in the Church, the burden of proof is not on me, it's on them. The simplest way that I would answer someone, who is what is called an "amillennialist," or a "Covenant Theologian" that is, believing that there is one covenant and the Church is the new Israel, and Israel is gone, and there is no future for Israel--an amillennialism, meaning there is no kingdom for Israel; there is no future Millennial kingdom.

My answer to them is simply this, "You show me in that verse, in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel, where it says that it really means the Church--show me!" Where does it say that? On what exegetical basis, what historical, grammatical, literal, interpretative basis of the Scripture can you tell me that when God says "Israel" He means the "Church"? Where does it say that? That's where the burden of proof really lies. A straightforward understanding of the Old Testament leads to only one conclusion and that is that there is a kingdom for Israel._

So why do so many people here keep saying he preaches good doctrine? I don't get it. In my personal experience he is the go to appeal for the Calvinist d.i.s.p.y.s I know. JM is their final word. He represents what it is to be Calvinist while hanging onto the d.i.s.p.y. error.

Is your mindset that as long as you have a Calvinist soteriology then you are a good teacher and eschatology or Covenant theology is irrelevant? I do wish people here would stop saying he is such a good preacher. I see him as having done enormous harm, based on the Calvinist folks I know who adore JM and are waiting for the rapture any day now, and then we can get back to the geographic Israel plan.

Also- about the money- I agree that his salary is his business. But what about church tithes and what they pay the son in law? I don't feel like looking for links right now, they are all over the place. It appears to be highly questionable at best. And then making the guy head of the JM trust going forward? With no pastoral experience and no financial experience in that realm? He was chosen because of his qualifications....or because he is a relative?

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1 | Funny 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 2, 2021)

I think we all agree that his Dispensational stuff is wrong, but it is not damnable heresy. And, it does not invalidate everything else he says. We all have error mixed in with truth.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TheInquirer (Mar 2, 2021)

MacArthur has also mocked and attacked aspects of Reformed Theology in the past. See Waldron's "MacArthur's Millenial Manifesto" for one example.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 2, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> MacArthur has also mocked and attacked aspects of Reformed Theology in the past. See Waldron's "MacArthur's Millenial Manifesto" for one example.


I know I have been zealous in my views sometimes as well. Not saying this makes it alright, but I understand where that is coming from. I appreciated Waldron's book on the matter as well (I think Waldron is right on).


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 2, 2021)

MacArthur has been _persona non grata_ ever since he made it clear that he would not kowtow to Big Eva's obsession with social justice.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 2, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> MacArthur has been _persona non grata_ ever since he made it clear that he would not kowtow to Big Eva's obsession with social justice.


1) Public repudiation/rebuke of charismania, which movement has moved/merged with dominant strain of evangelicalism
2) Not aboard the woketrain
3) Hi-Visibility opposition to lockdown insanity

All the ingredients for a coalition-takedown, who all share animosity for this one guy. I have criticisms of JMA. I also think the low-key approach to confronting state overreach is wiser and truer to NT principles. But its hard not to notice the multipronged assault on the church, the school, and the man.

Reactions: Like 9 | Amen 4


----------



## Edward (Mar 2, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> So what biblical principles apply to how much a pastor, celebrity or not, should earn from his ministry?


I've expressed before that a pastor should be able to afford the lifestyle enjoyed by the majority of his congregation and live in a similar neighborhood.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheInquirer (Mar 2, 2021)

Edward said:


> I've expressed before that a pastor should be able to afford the lifestyle enjoyed by the majority of his congregation and live in a similar neighborhood.



I've heard that many times in my life as well and I do think it is a generally wise principle. But is it biblical? What happens if a pastor enjoys a lifestyle that far exceeds that of his congregation and lives in a much nicer neighborhood? Has he done anything wrong?

Looking at some of Roys' criticism of MacArthur here, if it is true, some of it bothers me and some of it doesn't.


Real Estate - we all know real estate values are off the charts in many parts of California and since MacArthur has owned two of the properties for quite some time, I think we can safely assume what he paid for it is probably not at all similar to what it is worth now so present values aren't an issue for me. Also, he was gifted the ranch in Colorado Springs. If the guy uses the properties for ministry and is generous and hospitable, the real estate doesn't really bother me. However, when you do attack prosperity preachers and you have 3 properties, expect some scrutiny and pushback.


Salaries - I think his salaries from the three different sources (his church, Master's college and seminary, and GTY radio program) raise questions but aren't necessarily wrong. What bothers me is that transparency seems to be lacking here. Now compared to comparable CEO salaries of people who have names as big as his, he doesn't make much at all. His work and name obviously bring tremendous benefit to all those institutions. However, when transparency is lacking, and salaries are paid from donor money, I think more care and transparency is much wiser than less in my opinion.


Nepotism - I am seeing more and more what a huge issue this is in some churches. The financial deals, board memberships, and the like with family members are a cause of concern for me and scrutiny is warranted.
Added: regarding what type of lifestyle a pastor lives also involves other issues as well including what example it sets to the congregation, the example it sets to pastors you train (especially in MacArthur's case), and what kind of questions have to be answered by those in your congregation and those who follow and defend you if you go after other pastors for living an extravagant lifestyle and you yourself life far above the average.

Maybe MacArthur hasn't done anything wrong and biblically he "can" live like this. But "should" he? Is it wise given his position and the attacks he has made on others? As a very influential leader that so many look up to and listen to for guidance, is this the best lifestyle to live for their sake?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Edward (Mar 2, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> What happens if a pastor enjoys a lifestyle that far exceeds that of his congregation and lives in a much nicer neighborhood? Has he done anything wrong?


I would say 'yes' to that one. Even if it is inherited wealth. Or perhaps especially if it is inherited wealth. It might work if his wife is a 6 figure executive and he didn't come from wealth. But there is a difference between someone for whom an issue is a crisis and someone for whom the same issue is an expense. There is a risk of creating envy amongst the congregation and pride in the pastor. 

As to your bullet points 

- If the mansion pictured was his home, on the surface it does look a bit problematical. Even in Dallas, that looked like it would go in the $5-7 million range. BUT, as you raised, how does he use it? In any event, I'd consider questions to be legitimate. 

-Multiple income streams don't particularly concern me. Does anyone complain about celebrity endorsements by pro athletes? And Franklin Graham is pulling in over $1 million a year from his multiple sources, and a good chunk of that started when he was trading off of his father's name instead of his own. At least Mac built his own brand from scratch. 

-Nepotism brings its own risks (see the Crystal Cathedral fiasco, and at the last minute I just remembered Liberty University for a more recent example, Sproul for an earlier one) and should be avoided for practical reasons - if the family members are any good, use networking to help them land on their feet somewhere else (like TT at Coral Ridge). Unfortunately, it's all too common in the evangelical community, and I wouldn't use it to attack Mac if the family members are competent. 

Finally, I don't know what his congregation is like. Maybe that is the average for his congregation.


----------



## Edward (Mar 2, 2021)

I'll add one more thought about this - If the question is embarrassing, then it probably needs to be asked.


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 2, 2021)

You should watch the video. The mansion was not his house.


----------



## pmachapman (Mar 2, 2021)

Edward said:


> Nepotism brings its own risks (see the Crystal Cathedral fiasco, and at the last minute I just remembered Liberty University for a more recent example, Sproul for an earlier one) and should be avoided for practical reasons - if the family members are any good, use networking to help them land on their feet somewhere else (like TT at Coral Ridge). Unfortunately, it's all too common in the evangelical community, and I wouldn't use it to attack Mac if the family members are competent.


I personally believe the money and house issues reported on are misunderstandings, and I personally don't think an form of transparency is required for income, salaries, etc except what is legally required by the state or denomination where applicable. Choose carefully who you give your money to.

In terms of the perception of Nepotism, this is a difficult one. Churches hire a son of a beloved minister (i.e. Thomas Spurgeon), and you cannot deny the weight having the last name of Spurgeon had for his candidacy to the ministry there (there surely were other Godly Baptists in Britain at that time, and they didn't need to deprive New Zealand of him!). I know a church where the father was a pastor, and the son an elder on the same session. I don't think being related disqualified either from those offices, especially since the congregation elected these men to these offices. Yet, the apple can fall far from the tree (i.e. Herbert Ryle, Jean-Alphonse Turrettin), and of the top of my head, I cannot think of any real "dynasties" in Christian ministry. 

I find it interesting that a business that passes down the family line is a good thing, yet for parachurch ministry it does not seem to be.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 2, 2021)

pmachapman said:


> I find it interesting that a business that passes down the family line is a good thing, yet for parachurch ministry it does not seem to be.


Yes, it is indeed curious. On this question of nepotism, I believe a worldly mindset dominates the discussion.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 3, 2021)

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Yes, it is indeed curious. On this question of nepotism, I believe a worldly mindset dominates the discussion.


Sure. It is worldly to see something wrong with this below: 

ARTICLE LINK: *In the ongoing investigation into The Master’s University following its placement on probation, KHTS has uncovered millions of dollars that have been paid to John MacArthur’s son-in-law, Kory Welch.*

PDF LINK: *According to the SEC complaint, from 2014—2017, MacArthur and Gravette recommended that their clients invest more than $16 million in four private real estate investment funds, but failed disclose “a glaring conflict of interest.” That is, that the fund managers had paid MacArthur and Gravette more than $1 million. This was on top of fees that the two were charging their clients directly.*

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## pmachapman (Mar 3, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> PDF LINK: *According to the SEC complaint, from 2014—2017, MacArthur and Gravette recommended that their clients invest more than $16 million in four private real estate investment funds, but failed disclose “a glaring conflict of interest.” That is, that the fund managers had paid MacArthur and Gravette more than $1 million. This was on top of fees that the two were charging their clients directly.*


It looks like it is a matter for the civil courts then. As far as I am aware, no final judgment has been made? If none has been made, then I think it is immoral to treat someone as guilty until proven so in a court of law, by parading them in the media (something which does sicken me about the mainstream media in my country when covering someone who is not famous enough to warrant name suppression). If judgment has been made in court, then there is grounds for dismissal from any board positions, etc, as anyone else would have to do.


----------



## Paul1976 (Mar 3, 2021)

One aspect that I think is missing in this is that there is a difference between becoming wealthy in general and becoming wealthy from ministry. It is not wrong to acquire wealth in this world, it is not specifically wrong to live at a level appropriate to one's means. It can be a danger and a distraction, but it isn't wrong. It also isn't wrong to earn a living from ministry. I do have a problem with becoming excessively wealthy from ministry, though. Paul used the example of the prohibition of muzzling an ox while it treads grain. In other words, if a farm animal should be allowed to earn a decent meal in exchange for it's labor, those working full-time in ministry should earn enough to live on from it. The law doesn't require farmers to allow an ox to cart off tons of excess grain for later lavish living. 

Similarly, those that become wealthy from ministry are doing so largely from tithes and offerings given to further the gospel. That money was donated with the intent of advancing the gospel - anyone who believes the Bible should be concerned about taking a larger portion than is appropriate. I don't pretend to know where earning a reasonable living from ministry ends and effectively stealing from money intended to further the church's mission begins. I also have not read up on the specific concerns regarding JM, and do not feel the need to do so. I'm not going to comment one way or the other on whether JM has behaved inappropriately here. But, I do firmly believe that it is possible for a minister to draw too much income from their work for the gospel, and that is something we should be concerned with. Personally, I started doing a quick google search with a minister's name followed by "net worth." before including that minister in group of sources for sermons to download. I can say what I've turned up in some cases caused me enough concern that I decided to look elsewhere for sermons. In other instances, my respect for a teacher increased based on what I found. I can point to an individual who is well-known and has sold enough books they could legitimately be quite wealthy, but chose to quietly donate all their book royalties to a ministry instead.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Chad Hutson (Mar 3, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> MacArthur has also mocked and attacked aspects of Reformed Theology in the past. See Waldron's "MacArthur's Millenial Manifesto" for one example.


I'd like to check that book out, but I ordered it 8 months ago and haven't received it yet.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Mar 3, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> Sure. It is worldly to see something wrong with this below


That's of course not what I said.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Unique Name (Mar 4, 2021)

I have no clue if MacArthur (the guy who went on Ben Shapiro and indirectly called many of us on PB replacement theologian [edit: "Israel"] haters, more or less) owns three homes. But if he does, why is it controversial to call him out since he's so viciously opposed to prosperity gospel? There does not have to be a clear contradiction to claim there is a tension. Just like it's not a contradiction for him to preach doom and gloom rapture theology while at the same time complain about the advances of secularism, but there is a tension (even more so in my opinion if he owns tres hermosas casas). Just like its not a contradiction for him to complain about social justice and "racial" thinking when his own bible commentary tells us all about God's plan for the Jews apart from the "gentiles", implicitly endorses Zionism, (and probably has some weird racial stuff to say about a lot in the OT) but there is a tension.

p.s. what is so wrong with the core beliefs of _historic_ prosperity gospel since it is just an attempt to reconcile Christianity with the belief that the sin of sloth (barring exceptional circumstances) is the only thing in the way of a person's rising above and beyond the poverty line in America? It's simply combining the American capitalist individualist ethos with the bible. Besides, it's an excuse for American pastors to own three homes. Don't respond with "but Joel Osteeeeeen is stealing souls for the Devil". I don't doubt that. But that's not addressing my question.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35 (Mar 4, 2021)

Sam Horn Resigns as President of The Master's University and Seminary, Capping Three Years of Tumult | The Roys Report


Sam Horn has resigned as president of The Master’s University and Seminary, following three years of tumult at the schools.




julieroys.com





I have no idea what's going on over in MacArthur's world, but things like this (see link above) are not encouraging.

I've known and respected Sam Horn for a long time, though I would disagree with him on many things. To fire, then slander him like this, implying he's "unworthy" of eldership, is unconscionable. No one I know of has ever had anything negative to say about him. I would give him the benefit of the doubt over TMU.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 4, 2021)

The reality is: we're not all entitled to know everything that's going on in SoCal, let alone one particular pond there (large or small). We think we're "investors" because many of us have heard JMA on the radio. Even fewer of us have ever been to a single service where he's spoken, in SoCal or anywhere else. Fewer still are products of the institutions connected to him, or know someone who has attended one or more.

These days, as soon as something happens on the other side of the country, or the world, we hear about it, and start to form poorly informed opinions, based on the faulty premise that if we were any closer we'd have the same amount of information and context; and besides we have all we need right this minute to think exactly right (in spite of the variety of opinions arising from the same data pool).

It doesn't help that we live in a time and place when there's never been SO MUCH information available, unfiltered; and so many of the ad hoc faucets we've turned to in order to create a "stream" for us (from the sea we were drowning in) have been proved wrong more than once. Add to that, a climate of misinformation (some of it deliberate) and a bitter lack of trust--as many occupying the positions of trust have shown themselves scoundrels--and we have a perfect storm for controversies.

We'd all be better off just "withholding judgments" both positive and negative. Our "heroes" may be found out deeply flawed or massively vindicated. If we aren't fawning over them, nor dragging their name through the mud; if we aren't rushing to defend them based on nothing but our celebrity-acquaintance with their product, nor pillorying them based on sob-stories of personal experience (which we cannot verify); we may just stand by and wait for events to unfold as they will. Then we find out *what* happened (information), though not necessarily unveiling the manichean characterization of the actors.

"Activism" is a horrible modern work, where agitation stirs up mobs, which are then nudged and manipulated by well-positioned (and often hidden) powers. The "activists" are of two kinds, the "agitators" (that's the old word) and the "useful idiots." Guess what? If you don't know *why* you are being stirred up to defend or decry someone or something, you are just being given a BADGE for being an activist, while belonging to the "useful idiot" camp.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## TheInquirer (Mar 4, 2021)

> Even fewer of us have ever been to a single service where he's spoken, in SoCal or anywhere else. Fewer still are products of the institutions connected to him, or know someone who has attended one or more.



I can't speak for anyone else but:

I've heard him speak in person and heard him proclaim the church will fail in its mission just like Adam and Israel (typical dispensationalism). Even as a young Christian I was utterly shocked to hear this from him.
The first church I attended for 9 years where I received quite a bit of training was staffed by all Master's grads and even family members of MacArthur and I was on track to go to Masters if I continued pursuing the ministry at that point in my life
I know quite a few people who have attended his church
I know a guy who worked in his house who expressed surprise to me how nice it was (I don't know any more details than that and I didn't ask)
I know pastors who went through Masters who have quietly been encouraging their own guys in training to go to other seminaries due to concerns that are unknown to me
I know that at least some pastors and elders who are connected to that network who are afraid to disagree with MacArthur publicly
I've heard enough over the years not to completely write off the attacks nor to fully embrace them without sufficient evidence either. Like many of you, I am grateful for all the good work he has done for the Lord as I too have benefited from it. But unlike some of you, I don't believe he is a pristine saint without fault either and that these criticisms are completely unfounded.

The truth will come out at some point.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 3


----------



## retroGRAD3 (Mar 4, 2021)

TheInquirer said:


> But unlike some of you, I don't believe he is a pristine saint without fault either and that these criticisms are completely unfounded.
> 
> The truth will come out at some point.


I don't think anyone here believes he is a pristine saint. All preachers and teachers have failings and sin in their life, just like every other person. It comes down to if it disqualifies them or not.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 4, 2021)

retroGRAD3 said:


> I don't think anyone here believes he is a pristine saint. All preachers and teachers have failings and sin in their life, just like every other person. It comes down to if it disqualifies them or not.


This, and the fact that “not a pristine saint” should never mean in practice “to be assumed guilty of every allegation.” Charity is not just a good thing in these circumstances, but a command of the Lord.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 2


----------



## ChristianLibertarian (Mar 4, 2021)

Poking around other people's wealth and income has its roots in covetousness and is a violation of the 10th commandment. It's no one's business how much MacArthur or anyone else makes, it's no one's business how much real estate anyone else owns, it's no one's business what someone else's financial portfolio is. Quite frankly, it's no one's business if someone hires his son to work with him. Where in scripture is so-callef nepotism forbidden? Nearly all of western civilization has seen sons follow in the footsteps of their father and join them in their trade and ultimately take the business over. Obviously it's different in the church but if MacArthur's church hired his kids what's it to anyone? 

I don't agree with all of MacArthur's theology but he isn't peddling damnable heresy for profit. He isn't Osteen, White, Falwell or name your evangelical televangelist. He doesn't view the church as a means to wealth, unlike the aforementioned "pastors"

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Unique Name (Mar 4, 2021)

ChristianLibertarian said:


> Poking around other people's wealth and income has its roots in covetousness and is a violation of the 10th commandment. It's no one's business how much MacArthur or anyone else makes, it's no one's business how much real estate anyone else owns, it's no one's business what someone else's financial portfolio is. Quite frankly, it's no one's business if someone hires his son to work with him. Where in scripture is so-callef nepotism forbidden? Nearly all of western civilization has seen sons follow in the footsteps of their father and join them in their trade and ultimately take the business over. Obviously it's different in the church but if MacArthur's church hired his kids what's it to anyone?
> 
> I don't agree with all of MacArthur's theology but he isn't peddling damnable heresy for profit. He isn't Osteen, White, Falwell or name your evangelical televangelist. He doesn't view the church as a means to wealth, unlike the aforementioned "pastors"


Ironically it's the practice of simony or nepotism that helped create Reformation fever in Europe. But that's another story. What frustrates me is that he, as a dispensationalist, must commit to the idea that society is doomed, and that racial thinking is justified, yet he complains about the advances of secularism and racial thinking i.e., "wokeness". Staying within the scope of the convo, his wealth is ironic if he has such disdain for prosperity gospels historic tenets, which is basically the unification of capitalist, upward-mobility-individualism (the virtues of every Republican) with Christianity.


----------



## Taylor (Mar 4, 2021)

Unique Name said:


> ...his wealth is ironic if he has such disdain for prosperity gospels historic tenets, which is basically the unification of capitalist, upward-mobility-individualism (the virtues of every Republican) with Christianity.


This notion, even if problematic, isn't really the so-called prosperity gospel, though. The so-called prosperity gospel is the mixing not of capitalism with Christianity, but of pan-/polytheistic New Age paganism with Christianity. It is the belief that our thoughts are sovereign, even creative, and that we can therefore control our whole reality. Furthermore, God, who is nothing other than a feeble and kind-hearted but powerless grandfather in the sky, is only concerned that we are happy, and thus gives us the right magical formulas to achieve this happiness, which really just boils down to positive thinking.

I am not sure how MacArthur's being wealthy means that he believes any of this.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## bookslover (Mar 4, 2021)

In a sense, all of this is moot. MacArthur will turn 82 on June 19th and will probably be retiring from the ministry in the next three or four years (no, I don't have any inside information - this is just a guess), if not sooner, depending on his health (which, as far as I know, is good). No, he's not Reformed, but I've gotten a lot of good from his ministry in the 41 years I've been listening to him. I've attended his church several times over the decades, though not recently.

If there is any financial hanky-panky going on, it will, as someone above said, all come out eventually - possibly after he's retired, almost certainly after he's dead. None of us is perfect, and he will have to stand before the Lord and be answerable to Him, just as we all will.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## TheInquirer (Mar 4, 2021)

I only wish for the truth.

If MacArthur and his ministries are being slandered, I pray they will be vindicated quickly
If there is sin on their part, I pray it is repented of quickly

Reactions: Like 2


----------

