Iain H. Murray, John MacArthur: Servant of the Word and Flock (Banner of Truth, 2011), 246 pages.
That Iain Murray would write another biography and that John MacArthur would have a biography written of him were both near certainties as the second decade of the 21st century opened. That both would happen in the same book is unexpected. Murray is the soft-spoken Scottish author and founder of the staunchly Reformed Banner of Truth Trust. MacArthur (last name notwithstanding) is the American Dispensational trumpeteer of expositional preaching who exudes an unapologetic zeal for truth.
Yet the two share significant affinities, and their paths have crossed many times, giving Murray a friendship and rich familiarity with MacArthur. The result is a biography well worth reading.
As Murray says more than once in the book, this is not a definitive biography but a sketch designed to clear the way for a more extensive work by another biographer down the road. Murray reviews MacArthur’s life in 17 chapters, beginning with childhood and education, taking the reader up to events as recent as 2010 before concluding with a chapter outlining a few of MacArthur’s many strengths. The bulk of the book tells the story of MacArthur’s 40-plus years pastoring Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, California.
The book is fascinating. Murray refuses to be tedious (with the exception of chapter 13, which reproduces letters of appreciation written by radio listeners of MacArthur that would be more at home in a family scrapbook than a biography). We learn of a horrific injury from a car accident in college (13–14), an out-of-the-blue mutiny on the part of MacArthur’s pastoral staff in 1979 (47–48), an extended lawsuit in which a suicide was blamed on bad counseling at MacArthur’s church (49–52), the “Lordship” controversy (111–19; more below), a magazine/journal that failed miserably (143–48), and another horrible car accident, this one involving MacArthur’s wife, Patricia (138–42). Amid such drama, Murray skillfully describes the more well-known aspects of MacArthur’s ministry—the emergence of Grace to You (the radio ministry), the development of the Shepherd’s Conference, the beginnings of the Master’s College in 1985 and the Master’s Seminary in 1986, and MacArthur’s many books.
Especially interesting is Murray’s handling of MacArthur’s theology. Take the Lordship controversy, for example. MacArthur argued in The Gospel According to Jesus (1988) that one cannot receive Jesus as Savior (in faith) without also receiving him as Lord (in repentance). This was a clear rebuttal of what MacArthur deemed a defective (antinomian) understanding of the gospel prevalent in evangelicalism, and especially Dispensationalism. Zane Hodges, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, would be one of MacArthur’s loudest interlocutors. Those of a more Reformed persuasion applauded MacArthur’s efforts—yet it is this same Reformed crowd who, because of MacArthur’s Dispensationalism regarding how the two Testaments relate, have tended to distance themselves from him. Murray warmly describes the bridges that have been built between Reformed thinkers such as R. C. Sproul and MacArthur, yet the odd mix of convictions in MacArthur—soteriologically Calvinistic, redemptive-historically Dispensational—has made him something of a theological maverick in contemporary evangelicalism.
Murray also writes about MacArthur’s strong critique of the charismatic movement (119–22). Here Murray’s affinity with MacArthur may have prevented the clarity needed in discussing this issue—never, for example, was “charismatic” defined, despite the significant differences that exist among those who would attach themselves to this label.
A third area of helpful theological reflection was that of grace and law (122–25). One might quibble with Murray’s treatment of “law” in Paul, but he is certainly right to highlight the relationship between law and grace as a fundamental concern to MacArthur’s ministry.
More strengths to the book can easily and happily be noted.
First, Murray is a good writer—his words never require puzzling over; his transitions and structure are clear; he uses the English language skillfully. Second, Murray effectively allows MacArthur’s own voice to come through, quoting him neither too much nor too little. Third, Murray is not only a biographer (describing what has happened) but also a theologian (commending what is true) who refuses to check his theological convictions at the door when writing biography. We have already come to expect this of Murray in his works on Edwards, Wesley, Spurgeon, and Lloyd-Jones. Fourth, Murray admires without idolizing, consistently drawing the reader’s attention to God and his wise providence in MacArthur’s life.
Though drowned out by the strengths, one or two weaknesses might be identified.
The heart of MacArthur’s ministry is a passion for the truth, preached and taught without any people-pleasing subtlety. Such undiluted proclamation is startling and refreshing. As is so often the case, however, one’s greatest strength often includes with it one’s greatest weakness, and it is puzzling that Murray emphasizes the former while ignoring the latter. For MacArthur’s zeal for truth, communicated with forcefulness, has at times resulted in unwise or unfair statements. It is puzzling, for instance, that Murray declines to mention a pattern of overstatements. One thinks of MacArthur’s adamant message at the 2007 Shepherd’s Conference on “Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist.” The title alone is difficult to swallow. Other examples of a zeal for God that is not according to knowledge could be brought forth, such as his wholesale dismissal of Mark Driscoll’s strategic ministry in Seattle, or his recent misguided comments about Darrin Patrick’s book on church planting.
What stands out above all in closing the book, however, is MacArthur’s steely love for truth, truth as revealed supremely in the Word of God. For this let us all give thanks for John MacArthur, quick to forgive any baggage this brings and quick to rejoice in this faithful expounder of Scripture. Iain Murray is right: John MacArthur is, above all, a servant of the Word and flock.
I’m looking forward to reading this book. Just keen to see the otherside of Macarthur. But I agree with Iain this is just a partial skeleton and not yet the finished biography.
[...] Ortlund has a helpful review here of Iain Murray’s new biography, John MacArthur: Servant of the Word and Flock (Banner of [...]
Not too much of a maverick since a number of people are actually Dispensational and Calvanistic. I am one myself!
Good to know I am not alone, Allen!
There are many, many of us Calvinistic Premillenialists/Dispensationalists. It flows from the Word.
Amen! Thank God we can have a balance of convictions!
Dane, thanks for the review. I too look forward to reading the book. Does Macarthur call himself a dispensationalist? The last I heard, in an interview with Mark Dever he called himself “a leaky dispensationalist” at best. As far as his misguided statements, he is not the Savior but it is his convictions and ability to defend his convictions from Scripture that make him and his commentaries read by Baptists, Charismatics, Presbyterians, Hip Hop artists, etc. It is very interesting to me that Murray chose to write a biography on Macarthur over some other pillars of the reformed theology.
MacArthur’s teaching has been and continues to be foundational in my life and ministry. It was his series on Romans that “rang the bell” and awoke me from my prodigal wanderings and guided me home to my Father. I can’t say that I always agree wholeheartedly with everything he says or writes, but probably 90% of what I have read or heard in over 20 years of contact with his ministry has found some kind of application in my life. I thank the Lord for what He has enabled Dr. MacArthur to accomplish, and I look forward to reading this biography.
Thank you, Dane, for your review. It’s hard to write a biography of one still living – I imagine it’s also challenging to write a review of such as well.
You summarized some controversial points from John’s recent ministry as, “a zeal for God that is not according to knowledge.” That is you quoting Paul’s words in Romans 10:2 – a severe statement which calls out Jewish unbelievers who reject God’s righteousness so that they might establish their own (Romans 10:3). I can only imagine how your use of Holy Scripture could sound to John.
It’s a wonderful thing to compliment a brother as “zealous” for truth in one sentence, but not so when we use it in the next sentence against him. We serve a precise God, no?
Even though you may well disagree with MacArthur’s theology until the day the Lord takes you home, a sloppy handling of Scripture is something that ought not ever be done. John’s opponents are stacked sky-high, this is one thing no-one has ever successfully persecuted John with – a sloppy handling of Scripture.
Zeal for God without knowledge? Though you disagree with MacArthur’s position on Driscoll’s ministry, his position is certainly not “without knowledge.” Sorry to be frank, but this is just a foolish statement.
Very well stated, Ted. I read the review and couldn’t avoid the thought: Talk about overstatement…
Thank you, Dane for offering the review. I hope you’ll carefully consider Ted’s caution…
Thanks Ted.
Obviously I’m using Paul’s words from Rom 10 in a general way and not imputing to John the broader context of that passage. (Surely other things I said in the review would made this plain?)
Blessings, brother!
Dane,
Allow me to echo Ted and Danny’s concern with your misuse of Romans 10:2. Your zeal for balance and irenic discussion “has…resulted in [an] unwise [and] unfair statement.”
Besides, perhaps Murray agrees with MacArthur’s concerns regarding the philosophy of ministry espoused in Driscoll’s ministry and in Patrick’s book. After all, MacArthur isn’t alone in those concerns.
I think it is ok to use a biblical phrase like “zeal for truth without knowledge” in a different way than the biblical writer used it. That just seems like the obvious way that words work; really just basic linguistics. So, Dane did not “misuse” Romans 10:2.
Plus, time and the truth have revealed just how far off MacArthur was concerning his message “Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist,” his wholesale dismissal of Mark Driscoll’s strategic ministry in Seattle, and his misguided comments about Darrin Patrick’s book on church planting.
In many ways, the internet has helped the truth prevail by holding people accountable for their claims.
I’m actually surprised that Iain Murray wrote this biography. Certainly, MacArthur has been an influential figure in modern American evangelicalism, but for Murray to devote a biography to him? Murray has done fine work on some of the classic evangelical ministers since the 18th century. Sorry, but to write one on MacArthur just seems strange.
I cannot wait to read it. John MacArthur is the best!
I’m another who has been blessed tremendously by Dr. MacArthur’s ministry, having been saved at TMC and spent a number of years at GCC. I don’t doubt I’ll be telling my grandchildren about the privilege of learning to trust God’s Word over everything else from one of its fiercest, most faithful defenders, in person, Sunday after Sunday.
But, I think I understand the general idea Dr. Ortlund was calling out from that passage, even if the specific application might not have been warranted (and Dr. Ortlund’s follow up comment indicates that wasn’t his intent at all). To Dr. MacArthur, everything from the end times to the effect of a certain style of music on ones’ physical body (and thus its relative godliness) can be known from Scripture with certainty. (Or it can be defended by science, except when science itself is wrong. It all depends on whether or not it supports the dear Dr.’s position.
)
As Dr. Ortlund notes, and as is true of every pastor and every Christian, ones’ greatest strength can often be ones’ greatest weakness. At times, Dr. MacArthur’s zeal for truth has led him to declare as God’s inarguable truth things on which many other equally godly, equally knowledgeable and discerning men have a differing conviction. God is indeed a precise God, but not about quite so many things as Dr. MacArthur seems to want Him to be. The problem is, as Dr. Ortlund alludes, when you’re greatest strength is contending for the truth, your greatest weakness will be acknowledging when you yourself have been in error.
It’s interesting that so many spiritual children in the faith of other men like Piper or Sproul or Mahaney are more willing to acknowledge their spiritual fathers’ faults. Not so much with Dr. MacArthur’s, that I’ve read. How helpful it would be to the many men modeling their ministries after his if he would, at some point, assess his own body of work with the same level of godly-intentioned scrutiny he has applied to others’, and identify his own deficiencies, even after all these years.
Everyone has weaknesses for sure. But standing before 4000 Calvinists and preaching your convictions on dispensationationalism from Scriptue is not one of them. Also being brave enough to go against the flow of New Calvinism and Missiology by critiquing Patrick and Driscoll is needed in today’s pragmatic church. I see these as strengths more than weaknesses.
Thanks for the review of the book. I have been driving down the road listening to MacArthur’s radio broadcast and think – “gee whiz, I can’t believe he has the guts to say what he just said.” But i really think MacArthur says all he says based upon the authority of God’s Word — not just to draw attention to himself or his opinions. That is why I think his ministry has had such an impact and will continue to impact for future generations — unashamed proclamation of the Word of God. I pray that more and more men of God would be rasied up to fill the pulpits of churches.
I’m no fan of MacArthur but the weaknesses described in this post are a bit forced. I hope that, in a few decades, the only things that can be criticized about me is that I have a personality conflict with two trendy hipsters, I am unclear on the definition of a buzzword, and I once offended a large group of self-assured Calvinists. If you told me that he dropped the f-bomb 17 years ago, that would be more substantial.
I would agree, MacArthur’s position on Driscoll isn’t without knowledge. It is without grace, however, while being filled with indifference to how Driscoll submits himself to men more mature than he, such as John Piper and C.J MaHaney.
I have followed Dr. MacArthur’s teaching since I read articles by him in Moody Monthly way back in 1978, and have been greatly enriched by his ministry. But a man can run well for most of his life only to slip in his latter years; and as good as Ian Murray’s biography of John MacArthur may be, his view of, and treatment, not only of Driscoll but of many others sympathetic to Driscoll is a major slip in my mind, and scandalous.
I appreciate Dane’s review. It gives me insight into the books content. But the lack of objectivity on such an issue as this will prevent me from picking the bio up after it’s released. Dr. MacArthur has excelled at calling the church to accountability for the full life of his ministry. But until he models what he has stood for toward others, the bio will never have the credibility it could have. And for this, I am sad.
Michael,
Your statement regarding Dr. Macarthurs knowledge of the Driscoll situation but handled with no grace somewhat betrays your knowledge of it. Dr. MacArthur had much knowledge and handled it with much grace and if you knew the situation fully you may rethink your position.
I think the review did have a few weeknesses, but I disagree with the idea that MacArthur’s title from a sermon in his own church should have made the list. I mean, is that really one of the noteworthy events of his 40 year ministry?
In point of fact, Murray does deal with the accusation that MacArthur states things too strongly on (around 180-190), including a quote from Samuel Waldron. And, he has an entire section about his dispinsationalism, that he even titled “Objections and questions.”
I appreciate your review, but your criticisms of it were actually dealt with in the book. By the way, I think the phrase “wholesale rejection of…” might be an overstatement, but not one worthy of mentioning in your biography.
Not sure if my question has been asked and answered already…I’m interested to know what proportion of MacArthur’s preaching over the last 42 years have been from the Old Testament? I am not trying to have a stab at him…this is a genuine point of interest.
He has preached Daniel, Zechariah, Gen 1-12, and every few months he does a Psalm. Some of his most well known sermons are Psalm 19, Psalm 51, and 1 Sam 15.
He makes a point of using illustrations from the OT instead of from his life or from the news. He says it increases his congregations biblical literacy, so the result is that his congregation is exposed to the OT that way.