Sin and Christian leaders...

1781 words... wow, almost like a user agreement.

Dear David,
Thank you for this. What you said is entirely true and we need to examine ourselves in light of it. Who really wants to have their sin pointed out to them? Who really wants to think that what they are doing is sin? How able we are to find justifications and even "sanctify" our acts of disobedience and unfaithfulness. This is a real snare for those of us who are shepherds, who frequently must point out the sins of others. May God help us by His grace to examine our own hearts as thoroughly as we do the hearts of others.

I am saddened to hear that there has been no communication from the men at Pyromaniacs. Certainly as brothers we should be able to challenge one another and not "cut off" communications. It is not a good sign.

This is really very baseline. The NIV 2011 is an unfaithful, dangerous translation. For John MacArthur to place his name upon it is to commend it. Such a willingness is not consistent with his life-long faithful ministry.

It is always as we get closer to the finish line that the snares become harder to see. I hold out hope still that our brothers will reconsider this course. What motives other than love and concern for the truth do we have in challenging them in this?

Proverbs 27:5-6
"Better is open rebuke than love that is concealed. Faithful are the wounds of a friend, But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy."

Love, Gary

"Debate"?

Seriously?

I wrote one comment. You ignored most of what I actually said and followed up with a series of rapid-fire comments and blogposts impugning not only my motives, but my pastor's as well. Then you quickly closed the only thread where I had actually commented. The next time I even considered responding here, you had already closed comments on _that_ post as well.

One gives up fairly quickly when it becomes clear you WANT the conversation to be both one-sided and deliberately insulting. The guys at the Boar's Head Tavern burned me out with that tactic years ago. I took their link off our blogroll, too.

I agree with Doug Wilson.

Totally with Bayly's on decision to combine the MSB with the NIV 2011. And I think its excellent to warn of the dangers of greed / fame in Christian publishing, but to specifically indict MacArthur for financial greed seems unwarranted to not a few good men.

Maybe there is a case to be made that you question him privately on this if you are genuinely concerned that this is the reason, but it seems to harm a good brothers name to do so publicly with lack of evidence. What happened to 2 or 3 witnesses? It seems like we are acting on much less than that here.

That said, I do hope our dear brother Phil would consider reconciliation and a change of course with this decision. It is a very disheartening publishing decision indeed. Is it really too late Phil? From where I sit it seems both sides have something they can be humble about...

Dear Doug and Phil,

I blanched when Tim initially suggested John's move was due to financial considerations, but then I stopped, drew a breath and decided he was right to go there, despite it being impolitic.

I'm all in with him on this. I'm not always all in with him on our blog--nor he with me--but on the point of the influence of money in the Evangelical world I'm with him on both macro and micro levels.

Tim and I went off the Evangelical grid 25 years ago because we're convinced Evangelicalism has been corrupted by the love of money. So, if not here or now, where do we raise this issue? I've argued my reasons for thinking it germane in this post and elsewhere. I've said I would apologize on the front of the blog if Phil assures me that the MacArthur NIV 2011 doesn't profit John or any of his ministries. He hasn't done so, nor has anyone actually argued the points I've raised.

Nevertheless, I'm concerned when you suggest I'm wrong, Doug. And so, though I've run my posts past several elders at Christ the Word, I'll submit them again to the whole elder board at our next meeting. If they deem me to be sinning, or even just deficient in charity in what I've written, I'll apologize.

Several of the elders have personal appreciation for John MacArthur--one of them has a close relative who I believe attends Phil Johnson's Sunday School class. I think John will get a fair hearing from them despite their obvious closeness to me.

Finally I only wish John could assure us he's done the same with his elders about his involvement with the NIV 2011.

Love in Christ,

David Bayly

For context, here's the original post with the apology for being too flippant in pointing to the motive of money. From then on, I've gotten much more serious about it.

* * *

MacArthur Study Bible goes for it...

(TB: Since posting this, I've changed the last word of the title from 'gold' to 'it' and changed a couple other places to tone things down slightly. I'm sorry I was too flippant the first time around.)

Keeping a stiff upper lip, the guys at Pyro announced the release of the MacArthur Study Bible notes joined to the text of the neutered NIV2011. Triumphantly they tell us Zondervan is going to let them keep their notes just as they are. The Words of God are gone--deleted, that is--but the words of man are intact. Chalk one up for man...

Listen brothers, you needn't have "discussed" this for "a year." Two minutes should have been sufficient unless there was influence and sales and money involved.

Aaargh! So many friends would stay friendly if only I were ignorant of the hordes of filthy lucre that drives Christian publishing. No one's above it. And if you think it matters that John MacArthur himself doesn't collect all the royalties, you don't understand how the system works.

>>Actually, we've apologized for any implications of personal greed...I've been careful to say that I don't think personal greed motivated this decision.

Dear Mr Bayly, thank you for engaging and for your humble words, I don't think you are displaying a lack of love towards the Pyro people.

Maybe the problem is poor communication because I suspect that to most people's eyes the amended post you cite does not retract the personal greed charge, rather it still clearly implicates Mr MacArthur (i.e. the last paragraph of it).

In the latest post (and the last para of comment 11 here) it seems you also indicating the same when you write:

>>I'll take John MacArthur's word that money wasn't involved in this decision and apologize merely on the basis of his assurance if he gives it.

and

>>The men at Pyromaniacs were especially incensed that Tim and I suggested finances might play a role in John's alliance with the NIV 2011. Yet it seems obvious to us that when the act is sinful the motives behind it can't be pure... Honestly, suggesting the deed was the product of impersonal financial considerations was a mark of my respect for John MacArthur. The other options are mostly far worse... If the act is wrong in itself, the motives behind it must be equally wrong.

?

If his motives must be wrong wrong, as you say, then most readers would understand from this that you are implicating unsavoury financial motives on John MacArthur's part. How else to read it?

But if you are not implicating unsavoury financial motives on his part, then what have you been implicating all this time? From where I'm sitting, your retraction/apology seems cloudy because it does not seem to make sense in light of what else you have written.

I totally respect your entitlement to be concerned about the possibility that John MacArthur may be partly motivated financial / fame motives. No problem at all. You may even be right. But given that it's only private suspicion, would it not be wiser to speak to the man in private first, for fear of tarring his name? (This doesn't mean you can't give public warnings about greed, but to me it seems it should be done in such a way as not to implicate a dear brother without evidence.)

If you you take John MacArthur / Phil at their word (the reasons they have publicly given), then the sin is not financial greed but pragmatism, in wanting to get the message out to as many people as possible by becoming allies with Ahab.

Dear Henry,

I think my nephew-in-law just wrote privately asking basically the same question. Let me see if I can explain in a way that satisfies--and please let me know if it does or not.

Churches and homes are distinct realms for greed in the life of a pastor. It's possible to be generous in one and not in the other; it's possible to have greed at one and generosity at the other. My relationship to personal money doesn't necessarily color everything I do as the leader of a church.

It's possible to be personally generous but corporately greedy. It's possible to be personally greedy but corporately generous. The pope of Rome has few personal belongings. Technically, he's a pauper. But he presides over a well-to-do church, and that renders him personally responsible not only for his personal wealth, but for the wealth of the organization he leads.

In the same way John MacArthur can be influenced by the needs of the organizations he presides over even if he doesn't benefit personally or privately from contracts he enters into.

This is the distinction I'm making. But in the end, whatever the reason, it's a sinful move.

Love in Christ,

David

Lucas,

I for one do not disagree with you. It should not be off the table and brothers should be free to challenge each other about whether we are being motivated by greed.

The question is whether this should be done as a public accusation to the discredit of a man's name, or in a private admonition. Sometimes public challenge is fine (I'm not advocating the popular misuse of Matt 18 here). But in situations like this one where the evidence does not seem to rise much above suspicion (which I grant could be right) it seems more prudent to speak to the man in private, no?

David,

thanks for that clarification, I was not aware that you were distinguishing between personal greed and corporate greed. But I'd like to ask does it really make any difference? On your view, why was it wrong for you to have insinuated personal greed but not corporate greed? It's still attributing ill motives to the same man, is it not? And why was it better to do this publicly rather than privately, given the slender evidence in question? Many thanks again.

>>Then you quickly closed the only thread where I had actually commented. The next time I even considered responding here, you had already closed comments on _that_ post as well.

Dear Phil,

Fair criticism. I reopened comments on those two posts earlier this morning.

But we didn't quickly close the comments after you commented. The post where you commented was open for comments from 5:15 PM to around 1 PM ET the following day. After you yourself commented, forty other people over the next fifteen hours also commented. Then we closed the comments, but certainly not to keep you from commenting. Maybe it looked that way and I apologize. We almost never close comments and the reason we did it on this thread was that both David and I were going into a conference for a couple days and we didn't want the debate to proceed without our being able to participate. I explained that when I closed the comments, and yet I can see it might have looked like we had other motives. So I'm sorry.

And of course neither David nor I want to write in such a way as to be seen as "deliberately insulting." This is why we have made a point again and again that we respect John MacArthur and you men at Pyromaniacs. So now I say it again: David and I respect you men of Pyro and John MacArthur.

Love,

Dear Henry,

I wasn't using bank robbery as an analogy because of the connection to greed. Any sin would do. You're saying we can't infer motives behind sins. But this is routinely done in Scripture. Paul accuses Peter of not associating with the Gentiles because he fears the Judaizers. Nowhere in Scripture do we find sin separated from underlying motives. Good motives lead to good deeds: out of the fullness of the heart the mouth speaks, etc., etc.

Enough. I've said all I'll say on this lest I end up angry. I appreciate the kindness of your words of challenge, though I'm afraid I still find myself in disagreement with you.

Love in Christ,

David

>>when you shut down the comments several weeks ago, you basically said, “Talk to the hand!”

Dear Mark,

Helpful. We've just finished two more posts, one which just went up and another to follow. Hope they do a better job of sharpening our points.

Meanwhile, I was the one who closed comments on two of the eight posts on this matter--not David. And in that connection, please see my explanation for closing the comments a couple comments above.

Love,

>>Just wait until he writes a book. I bet it will be (gasp) more than 17000 words. Of course, there won't be a checkbox at the front of it saying, "I have read and agree with the following." before you are allowed to come in his house.

Haha. Nice one. :)

So doing the wrong thing for the right reasons isn't possible?

I'm an outsider who agrees with the forecast that MSB on the cover of the new NIV with be interpreted by many who see it as an endorsement of sorts for the translation and while clarifying some aspects of the text, the notes will also have the effect of increasing sales of the NIV in certain quarters. In fact, many will likely see the endorsement who never read the notes criticizing the translation in key places. But, I was also pretty certain that a decision of this significance was given serious thought by GTY. I had hoped for a discussion or even debate of the pluses and minuses of the decision to go ahead with the notes for the NIV.

That hope was eliminated by your initial post that started not with what we know -- the decision -- but what we don't know: why. Posts like this new one that start by belaboring the obvious (age and fame can corrupt good decision making, money even for a good cause can corrupt good decision making, famous and godly people are still human and can actually sin, etc.) and then transitions directly into a discussion of the aging and famous and godly John MacArthur successfully shift everyone's focus from the activity to its motivation. The result is a series of posts and comments that have had virtually nothing to do with the merits of the decision but are a flurry of backtracking, explaining, clarifying, defending, hedging, and so on.

I work at a consulting firm and we routinely review each other's work. This is totally not personal; although sometimes painful, we all want it for the good of the client, the firm, and our own work individually. It is done in fairly public internal forums. Questioning the *motives* for bad work is far more profound and handled entirely differently.

Your posts give the appearance (to me, at least) that you don't appreciate this difference at all. You completely torpedoed a nuanced discussion of your concerns about a particular decision by starting with (rather crude) speculation about the impacts of age and fame and finances and legacy on the author of the decision. Did you leave anything out of that list? In defense, you say that your speculation could have included worse motives. Wow.

The result is a lengthy series of posts and comments (like this one) that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, a discussion of which that could have been beneficial in many ways. That you see yourselves as something of victims in this rather than primarily the cause further damps the hopes for getting back to the original issue.

[NOTE FROM TIM BAYLY: Dear CB333, it's a house rule that those who criticize others on Baylyblog, whether David or me, or another commenter, are required to identify themselves. Normally, if someone submits an anonymous comment like yours, I'll write them privately informing them of this rule and asking them to identify themselves. In your case, when I tried I found you hadn't even submitted an e-mail address so I couldn't communicate with you privately. I've made an exception to the rule in keeping this comment up, but if you comment again, please be sure to submit your e-mail address with your real name. Thank you.]

>>That you see yourselves as something of victims in this...

Actually, not. I think you misunderstood David.

Love,

Is it possible, Joseph?

I've been thinking about it. It seems like you can do the right thing for the wrong reasons. Then again, in that case, is it really the right thing? I guess your motives corrupt it, and it's not actually good. On the surface, it's the "right" thing, but underneath are evil motives.

But to do the wrong thing for the right reasons.....Could it be that a lack of wisdom and understanding could lead someone to do the wrong thing, mistakenly thinking that it will accomplish good?

I'm not really thinking of it in this context, but just in general. I'm not sure.

Dear CB333,

You're right. The post is kind of a pastiche. That's likely due to personal feelings of betrayal.

You're wrong in thinking that the practices of a business consultancy can be applied to the Church. Your goal as a consultant, as you describe it, is to remove attribution of motive (in this case, accusation of sin) from the equation. This is opposite the work of pastors and elders.

Dispassionately discussing the reasoning behind a business decision is one thing. Advocating such an approach for church leaders dealing with sin is silly.

Once sin is admitted such an approach can perhaps help prevent its recurrence. But even in a consultancy I suspect you have to convince people that a crack-up has occurred before you conduct the post mortem.

Imagine, for a moment, Paul trying to discuss with Peter the pros and cons of his reasons for distancing himself from the Gentiles even as Peter's still denying that it's sin and aligning himself with the Judaizers.

Love in Christ,

David Bayly

Henry,

"The only difference between us seems to be that I don't think we can *always* clearly infer motives behind sins in every instance. And this particular case, to my eyes, is one of those instances. Maybe we both need to seek a second opinion."

If only it were that simple. As a father with my own boys who are 6, 8, and 10, I can *rarely* if ever clearly infer motives. behind sins. I would go so far as to say that with adults, we who are oh so sophisticated and practiced in our own self deception, it is virtually *never* possible to infer motives clearly and without doubt. Does this mean that we are never to do so? Surely not. Some of the more helpful times in my life have been when other men have questioned my motives for things...even when they may not have been 100% accurate. Humility allows us to look past these blind stabs (not always initially, but later sometimes) and glean from them a fuller awareness of our own sin.

The T in TULIP really does have DEEP implications.

Hi there Daniel,

"Over and over... continually rebuke Tim and David..." I have? Really? Let me think:

I recall posting a post where I counted the words in a post... Don't think that was a rebuke. Just a fact of how many word were written. I had just finished reading the other post about user agreements and it seemed fitting.

I recall posting a post that has been deleted now, where I pasted a youtube clip of Jars of Clay singing They Will Know We Are Christians By Our Love. That was a rebuke? Really. If love is not involved in all of this, what's the point? Love does not always feel good. You know... 1 Cor 13.

I remember posting in reply to a person who called JMac and Johnson false prophets... this post is now gone too. I said if they are truly false prophets then they are hell bound, I asked the Bayly brothers if they agreed with this man and his statement. It was a question, not a rebuke. oh, and I posted Proverbs 16:18 "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Why does this offend?

That's all I can recall at the moment. I do not see any rebuking there.

For the record, I personally commend the Bayly brothers for their convictions.

But, maybe I missed it, but it seems that something this BIG (the allegations towards JMac and Johnson) should have not gone public first.

Did not Jesus teach that first you are to go to the person privately first?

Dear Daniel,

Martin D is a dear friend from my past. I haven't known what to make of his comments here, but if anyone has the freedom to criticize me freely it's Martin. Martin and I were friends in high school when we used to sit in his tiny 76 Civic and smoke marijuana in the Elgin High School parking lot. He went into the navy, I went to college. He became a Christian in the navy while stationed in Australia and wrote all his old high school friends to witness to what God had done in his life. I wrote back congratulating him, but informing him that I thought I had become an atheist. Of course, I hadn't, but my path was headed there.

Years later, when I graduated from seminary and started an internship in Fullerton, CA, I learned that Martin was now out of the navy and studying at a 4-Square Gospel college in Huntington Beach. We renewed our friendship--this time as Christians.

But a few years later we fell out of touch again after Martin went to North Park Seminary and took an Evangelical Covenant church. I was upset at his embrace of women's ordination and he was probably tired of my challenging him about it.

Martin's been commenting here for months now and I've not followed up with personal greetings because, to my embarrassment, I've been both lazy and leery of the past.

I love Martin not only as an old friend, but as a signal of God's mercy to me in pulling me out of rebellion against Him, so please don't think ill of him. Even if he's thoroughly disgusted with where I've gone theologically, I'll take his criticism because he stood by me when I wasn't following the Lord.

Love in Christ,

David

Hi David,

I remember sending that letter to all my teenage friends and receiving your reply in-which you quoted Marx. Four years later I wrote my first college paper on Marx to learn more about the fellow and his famous quote.

It was two years at Fuller and one at NPTS. Talk about battles in Christendom... I want to throw-up every time I receive mail from Fuller now. Under Mouw’s leadership the great apostasy is moving right along, with his popish hand blessing the Mormon people. http://blog.godreports.com/2011/12/president-of-fuller-seminary-declares-mormonism-is-not-a-cult/

And NPTS... Well we all make mistakes don’t we?

With age I have come to understand your views on women in ministry better and I think you are correct. For that matter I suspect we would agree 95% of the time. Just can’t swallow the reformed infant baptism issue. Piper and Mohler are influential here. (However, if I recall correctly, Piper has changed his church’s membership qualifications to accept reformed infant baptized adults.) My bad experience with my upbringing in the Lutheran church has also influenced me... yes I know its not the same as the Reformed position but its still an infant. Anyways, I'm a bedfellow with the Baptist.

As far as the past goes, I can only think about what Peter felt like when Jesus spoke to him in Luke 22:31-34, and then how God used him in Acts! Jesus makes it all possible because he makes intercession for us Hebrews 7:25. Amazing Grace. I often think of the Day when I will stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ. My head will be low and all I will be able to do is point to the Blood stained Cross. I have not tried to bury my talents, but I think all I have to show for them is low interest Luke 19:23.

The years of life roll on. My latest has been Parkinson’s Disease for the past several years. It effects the mind and body in strange ways, and the drugs that help open ugly doors themselves. If not for the risen Saviour... I don’t know how my unbelieving PD friends keep going... If I didn’t have the Rock of my Salvation... I truly would be a basket case. It looks like it is soon going to take my ability to work away. When my wife and I talk about the future what comes to my mind is Matthew 6:26-30. With this early spring, the Robins bring comfort to my heart, saying "God is close."

I now type very slowly and at times painfully and the mind can become a little cloudy and multitasking is impossible.

I find that I tend to be sarcastic. It is my downfall. I often speak with my fingers without engaging my conscious mind first. For that I apologize. I look for humor everywhere, even with this dis-ease.

Family is well and the marriage is strong.

The oldest two are in college. One a senior looking forward to teaching High School English and the other is a freshman looking forward to being an accountant. The other is a junior in High School and his latest idea is to move to Australia for a year after graduation. All three are ‘A’ students, unlike their father’s B’s and occasional C’s. The oldest two are showing great pursuit of the Father’s face. It truly brings tears to my eyes. The youngest is still young and showing signs of assurance of salvation. (One future option for him is police work. When I asked him about the possibility of getting shot at, he replied, “I do not fear death. I believe in Jesus Dad!”)

I now drive a 99 Ford Ranger.

Warm regards,

md

Dear Martin,

Well, this is a great pleasure. A joy. How good God was to us thirty years ago, and how good He remains. It brings tears to my eyes to think of the faithfulness He's demonstrating today in matters begun nearly four decades ago, including our friendship. And how I wish that we could include Mark and Bryan in this conversation.

I'll take this private after this, but I hope we'll have the chance to get together soon.

I love Baptists. And remember that I went to a LCMS school during the years they taught confirmation--an experience that still makes my teeth grind when I hear people talk about the commonalities between Presbyterians and Lutherans. In fact, were it not for baptism, I'd rather be Baptist than Presbyterian. But about fifteen years ago I came off the fence and fully embraced infant baptism for a variety of reasons--my own children growing up and asking to receive communion when they hadn't yet been baptized and my realization that I was making baptism a barrier to communion, thus expecting rebellion, in a sense, in order to give absolution through baptism; my understanding of covenant succession and its implications for the family and the Church.

But I'd love to be in an environment like that at Tim's ClearNote Church where baptism is viewed through a lens of love rather than serving as a fortress to battle from and over.

My own kids are growing. We have five, from 22 down to 13. Nate's finishing college and looking to be a pastor (and is married to Aleaha and father to 6-month-old Micaiah). Elizabeth's working in an orphanage in Peru on a one-year break from college. Ben is about to enter college. Tessa is a sophomore in high school and Isaiah just entered teen years, turning 13 earlier this month.

I'm sorry about the Parkinsons. I'll pray for you. But I know you're no victim. You never were, you aren't now. Dad used to say to men who learned of a terminal prognosis, "Good. You don't begin to live until you know you're going to die." I've had my health issues as well of late, and so I'm not saying this lightly. It's a joy to trust God with our futures, isn't it.

So, now to private communication....

Love in Christ,

David

Yes it is.