Puritan Board Senior
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 evangelicalismMacArthur has been persona non grata ever since he made it clear that he would not kowtow to Big Eva's obsession with social justice.
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 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.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 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.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.
Sure. It is worldly to see something wrong with this below:Yes, it is indeed curious. On this question of nepotism, I believe a worldly mindset dominates the discussion.
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.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.
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 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.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.
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.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.
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.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"
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....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.