My Thoughts On The MacArthur-Shapiro Interview

I listened, with no small sense of interest, to the recent interview of Grace Community Church Senior Pastor and author, John MacArthur, by equally notable conservative media analyst and apologist, Ben Shapiro. The interview revolved around MacArthur’s views concerning Western Civilization, American culture, Christian Worldview, and political engagement. The responses from the interview have ranged anywhere from excited affirmation to disappointed denouncement. For me, I found segments deeply troubling especially concerning his views of pastors and churches engaging the civic arena, while simultaneously appreciating his clear articulation of the Gospel. The last few minutes of MacArthur explaining the differences of Christianity to Judaism to a practicing Jew (Ben Shapiro) by using the Old Testament was powerful. I can’t help but think that this presentation made Shapiro think and potentially opened the door for God’s grace to reach his heart. That being said, the earlier interview segments were clearly out of his scope of understanding.

Allow me at this point to make a quick disclaimer. I have issues with MacArthur and his brand of Cessationism and Premillennialism. He would clearly state that my Continuationism and eschatological optimism would be equally troubling to him. I’m not sure how much of that reality might spill over into my analysis of this interview, but I believe I can compartmentalize that theological reality and still critique his interview with fairness. After all, I have several of his books sitting on my shelf which I could (and have) easily recommended to congregants and colleagues through the years. MacArthur has been no small voice in evangelical Christianity over the last 50 years. His influence and ability to articulate biblical truths will no doubt continue long beyond his mortal life. The Church is better because of his voice. However, that affirmation does not automatically make one an “expert” on every theological area, nor does it exempt a critique of public comments which are potentially damaging to the Church’s mission.

As I have watched social media pundits weigh in with their comments and analysis, I would recommend reading the critique offered by American Vision entitled, “Comments on John MacArthur’s interview with Ben Shapiro” Here (Dr. Joel McDurmon). This article is by far the best one I have read and encapsulates many of the same concerns I heard through the interview. Dr. McDurmon is by far the better writer so I will defer trying to repackage his excellent analysis on some important theological and Scriptural points. Instead, I want to use this interview as a “springboard” of sorts to address the desperate need we face in America in finding a clergy prepared to address the issues of the civic arena in a consistent, Scriptural manner which unabashedly proclaims Christ’s Lordship in this and every area of life. Our visible, notable, celebrity Christian leaders are being solicited more and more by a curious media to offer their “take” on how the Bible addresses our current national dysfunction. Whether it be MacArthur, Jeffress, Graham, Falwell, Grudem, or the like, there seems to be (in my opinion) some critical gaps which consistently reveal themselves whenever opportunities arise to challenge the secular worldview. The good news is that the culture appears curious about biblical worldview. The bad news is that it’s articulation when it counts seems to come up short. MacArthur’s interview illustrates FOUR areas that clergy must immediately get more thorough training in combatting…

1. Presuppositions

Secularism is built upon a foundation of certain lies. It embraces relativism and situational ethics. It elevates one’s feelings over certain biology. It’s epistemology is squarely rooted in humanism and agnosticism. Therefore, every question we are asked as Christians must first be examined under the filter of analyzing it’s presupposition. Every person has hundreds of presuppositions as they interpret and journey through life. We have very different assumptions from secularists in approaching the nature of humanity, the foundation of authority, and most importantly, how Scripture applies to the decisions of life. Unfortunately, many of our presuppositions have been established through our Babylonian educational experiences in secular schools. This simple reality causes us to miss God’s sovereign activity in humanity, nations, and the events of history. We take at face value the instruction of our Babylonian teachers whose darkened minds cannot see the hand of God or the tapestry of His activity through the centuries.

MacArthur is known as a ruthless, biblical expositor. That reputation deserves affirmation. He is normally very good at making these connections. However, his uncritical acceptance of the nature of the American Revolution as “rebellion to authority” and the spiritual beliefs of the founders as “deists” was glaring. These “facts” are simply not so and certainly cannot be generalized to explain the spirit of the American Revolution. His acceptance of the two-party paradigm as a “given” box in which Christians must embrace to select its leaders was disappointing. These two illustrations unveil that he has never challenged these secular presuppositions in light of a consistent biblical worldview, despite being a phenomenal teacher of the Scripture.

If a pastor the stature of John MacArthur is susceptible to this influence, what might that suggest as a broader concern with regards to the clergy of America? What erroneous presuppositions have we swallowed and consequently reduced the impact of the Gospel in certain arenas of life? Clergy are not instantly immune to deceptions simply based on their call, number of books written, size of congregation, or expertise in specific topics in the Bible. A part of the pastor’s calling is to challenge the presuppositions of a culture which is blind to the precepts of God’s Word.

2. Pessimism

MacArthur is a fairly classical premillennialist. It is, currently, the most popular brand of eschatology in America. While he has written that he does not subscribe to every dispensational point, there is little doubt after this interview that he has indeed embraced the perspective that the future is not very bright with regards to cultural change. In fact, he was quite clear that everything is going to get even worse. Once again, his eschatology is impacting his strategy for the present. His pessimistic view of the future and de facto his understanding of the constantly prevailing power of the Gospel has at best reduced the possibility of cultural change if not outright surrendered the possibility of any civic reformation.

Your view of the future will impact your decisions today. The Church has culturally surrendered because it’s clergy have preached an eschatology of pessimism with regards to culture. We have heard that culture is a “sinking ship” so often that to challenge it’s direction and value systems seems to contradict the very Will of God in its demise.

The truth is that the Bible is incredibly optimistic when it comes to the power of God and the prevailing nature of the Gospel in both individual’s lives and the surrounding culture. The truth is that Jesus wins on every front no matter what the front may currently look like. He won at the Cross. He won at the Resurrection. He won at the Ascension. He sits now at the right hand of the Father waiting for this victory to be made manifest through His Church (Hebrews 10:12-13). The sad reality is that most pulpits are preaching a pessimism which feeds a disengagement from any cultural reformation. It’s hard to recruit people to what they are convinced is a theological certainty that the devil wins when it comes to culture. This must change.

3. Passivity

Perhaps most surprising to me is MacArthur’s genuine passivity in challenging the values, sins, and injustices manifested through government and the culture. I encourage the reader to listen to the actual interview and see if the tone and the dialogue was not clearly an affirmation of Christian retreat. MacArthur exhorted us to pray, speak kindly, and vote our values (at least as closely as we can within the two-party paradigm), but there was a clear caution about traversing anywhere near actual civic engagement and prophetic confrontation. His landing point was that the Christian was to live “peaceable, quiet lives” clearly affirming our passivity to what is taking place around us.

Honestly, how can a scholar of MacArthur’s stature clearly dismiss the role of the prophet in Old Testament civic matters? How does he miss the clear connection of Judaism’s Sanhedrin in the New Testament to both religious and civic oversight so that when Jesus rebukes them He is actually engaging a “political” arena? What about John the Baptist’s clear prophetic declaration to Herod? Paul’s demand to go to Rome and litigate his right to preach? To see a staunch, reformed, Calvinist as MacArthur defending cultural passivity was indeed a surprise.

The Church and its leaders must break from this non-biblical passivity and again walk in the fullness of the Great Commission mandate and speak to civic issues.

4. Pragmatism

Shapiro inquired delicately the issue of finding biblically qualified leaders and how a Christian should process their vote. Shapiro tried to make a tenuous connection with the Enlightenment as a possible partnership with a biblical worldview to somehow save Western Civilization. MacArthur rightly refused the connection. However, in the discussion there was an absolutely terrible presentation by MacArthur on theocracy (again see the American Vision critique) and the stronghold of election pragmatism was erroneously “baptized” as the Christian’s fallback position when no candidate apparently qualified.

It is confusing to me how MacArthur can suspend his normally consistent, comprehensive application of the Scriptures in this regard. Of course, I watched untold numbers of pastors in the last election cycle suspend their normally comprehensive hermeneutic as well. This is perhaps the greatest disappointment with regards to our visible Christian leadership during election cycles. We desire our values to be upheld and God to be honored, yet we refuse to fearlessly adhere and honor those commands which direct us which leaders do indeed qualify as rulers.

For me, the interview demonstrated that the time has come for a new generation of voices to arise to challenge the status quo, passive, pessimistic hermeneutic which MacArthur (and others) want to uphold. I respect his knowledge and influence with regards to presenting the Gospel and discipling individual believers. I think he has a great insight and discernment concerning the practices of the Church in our era. Unfortunately, MacArthur needs training (as do many ministers) with regards to the comprehensive nature of the Cross and Christ’s Kingly rights upon the entire creation. The interview reminded me again, as to why the transition has occurred in my own ministry and the vision which needs to come to fruition here in America.

I appreciate my brother, John MacArthur, and recognize his gifts to the Church. Engaging secular media and articulating Christ’s Lordship upon all arenas of life isn’t one of them.