In 4 Characteristics of Genuine Christian Teachers, I addressed Paul's statement in Philippians 1:16-17. Following his warnings about those who were preaching Christ out of selfish ambition, Paul adds:
We know Paul would never have said this if those who were preaching for selfish gain were preaching bad doctrine. His letters are filled with warnings against false teachings.
Typically, false motives and bad doctrine go together, but the people Paul was addressing in Philippians apparently were teaching the Word, but not living it.
This happens today as well. For example, Ravi Zacharias and Philip Yancey taught helpful biblical truths while involved in sexually immoral relationships.
A desire for wealth is also a common temptation for well-known teachers (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:2).
John MacArthur, a well-respected Bible teacher, often condemned the selfish gain of false teachers like Joel Osteen, yet he had questionable financial practices himself.*
Does this mean that nothing these men taught was helpful? No. Despite their personal sins, they did preach some sound Bible truths: “whether from false motives or true, Christ [was] preached.”
When their ungodly choices are revealed, I think it's wise to find other teachers and authors since their sins could be mildly reflected in some of their teachings. But we need not forget the accurate Bible truths they taught.
✞✞✞
See Why Philip Yancey's Book Is Backward on My Bookshelf and The Popular Teachings of Joel Osteen: Beware.
* MacArthur's church belonged to the respected ECFA (Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability), but when asked to comply with ECFA standards in 2021, they resigned, keeping their salaries and other finances secret. (Source) Several readers have become quite bothered that I shared something negative about MacArthur. If you are one of them, please read my response to the first comment below this devotion. It will give you more information about my research and findings.
Putting John MacArthur in the same article wtih Joel Olesteen based on a shabby, poorly written article is beneath you Gail. I know several of the people mentioned in that smear piece written by Julie Roys and their character is beyond reproach.
ReplyDeleteSimply read the sensationalized title: The Prosperous Lifestyle of America’s Anti-Prosperity Gospel Preacher. Then consider her first two paragraphs and it is clear she has set out with a bias. "Railed?" "Taken Aim?" Phil Johnson was right to cut her off.
A cracker box house in California is worth .5M. Of course a house you have lived in for 35+ years with 4 bedrooms in Santa Clarita is now worth 1.5M. By the way, the church gifted that home to the MacArthurs out of love and appreciation. That congregation did well to have given that home to their beloved pastor and his family. As scripture says, "Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the Word and doctrine." 1 Tim 5:17
The land in Colorado was gifted to Dr. MacArthur by a very generous man who has also gifted much to others. After many years of tireless preaching and travel do we really begrudge a faithful servant the right to build a small retreat in Colorado?
I have been reading your daily devotionals for some time now. Even purchased your Wisdom for Life devotional and have given it to friends. But your insinuation today which maligns an incredibly faithful bible teacher and pastor (who is now deceased) is just plain wrong and poorly considered.
I will be unsubscribing.
I am sorry that you feel this way.
DeleteSince you believe the Roys Report a “smear piece,” and you personally know people mentioned in the report, please leave me links to show me where the Roys Report has misrepresented MacArthur, his church, or the others you know. I will gladly correct anything I've written that is in error.
However, I want you to know that I did additional research to confirm what the Roys Report explained, confirming that MacArthur’s church has resigned from ECFA accountability and quit filing with the government, and does not make church salaries public anymore, but if something else in the Roys Report is incorrect, please send me links that prove it, and I will not use Roys Report link but use the other articles that confirm specific facts in the Roys Report.
I know homes are expensive in CA, but a home worth 1.5 million with an inground pool and full tennis courts is still considered on the high end. If that were MacArthur’s only home, I might agree it’s no big deal. But he has three homes.
And after a man gifted him with the 5-acre property in CO for his 3rd home, MacArthur built a 7-bedroom, 7.5-bathroom ranch worth 800K. When you wrote “do we really begrudge a faithful servant the right to build a small retreat in Colorado?” you revealed that you must be very wealthy and out of touch with most American Christians. A single family home with 7.5 bathrooms is a “small retreat”? Most of those tithing their income to churches would consider that a luxury home. I certainly would.
Records show that MacArthur hires his family members. And in a verified situation, he paid his son-in-law $83,677 as director of television broadcasting for the church one year and raised it to $741,000 the next year.
If there are valid reasons for giving his company 10 times what he earned the year before, why is the church unwilling to explain it?
If the church is handling their finances ethically, why refuse to answer specific questions about their finances? Why would MacArthur’s church resign from ECFA, an organization created by people like Billy Graham to keep churches accountable. And why would they stop filing a government form that proves non-profits are handling their money honestly?
You said Johnson did the right thing to cut off the person asking for information. If the claims were false, why wouldn’t he want to correct them and give them proof that the church was honestly handling funds? What biblical principle is behind refusing to answer questions about the financial practices of a church?
MacArthur certainly preached about integrity. So I’m having trouble understanding why Johnson would not willingly offer proof to clear MacArthur’s name.
If someone did something he disagreed with, MacArthur was known for calling him/her out and often doing it quite harshly. If you feel the title of Roys article title was "sensationalized," I encourage you to research some of the harsh things MacArthur said about those with whom he disagreed. Do you think "Go Home" was a godly response when asked about Beth Moore? Or was it a bit “sensationalized”? Wouldn't it have been more biblical to kindly explain his concerns about her teaching?
If a ministry refuses to share their financial practices with the government, the ECFA, and reporters, they look like they have something to hide. Why would a ministry choose to do this if their practices are honest?
You’ve claimed my devotion is “insinuation…plain wrong…poorly considered.” Please show me what I wrote that is insinuation, wrong, or poorly considered and give me proof, and I will gladly change my devotion.
I am not asking you to re-subscribe to my blog because I will continue to present truthful facts in appropriate ways whether it pleases people or not. My desire is to accurately explain what Scripture means and when appropriate, warn people of errors. Please consider how strongly you have defended MacArthur despite the evidence. I fear that is the reason many popular ministers get off track. Their followers believe they are above accountability.