toady: a servile flatterer; sycophant, esp. one who does distasteful or
unprincipled things in order to gain favor.
prevaricate: to walk crookedly; to turn aside from, or evade, the truth;
equivocate; to tell an untruth; lie.
On the World Wide Web site of Phil Johnson , who is a paid employee of John MacArthur
(Johnson is head of MacArthur's tape, radio, and Web ministry; has been the principal
editor of MacArthur's major books over the last 15 years; and teaches courses in writing
and editing at The Master's College and Seminary), is an article titled "A Defense of John MacArthur
Against Accusations of Rick Miesel of Biblical Discernment Ministries." Though
the article was "written" by Jeff Simmons of the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area, the
note from Johnson at the beginning of the article, and the fact that it is on Johnson's
Web site, are evidence that Johnson is in agreement with the contents of the article.
Therefore, many of the remarks in this response apply equally to both Johnson and Simmons.
(And, considering Johnson's official position as an elder of Grace Community Church,
perhaps this response applies even to John MacArthur himself.)
With Johnson's theological training (B.A. Theology[1975], Moody Bible Institute), he
apparently could not do better than Simmons or he would have written the article himself.
(In fact, some of the paragraphs in the article are word-for-word from Johnson' letters,
emails, and memos that pre-date the late-1996 posting of Simmons' article.) Why did
Johnson have to go half way across the country to find a written reaction to all the
questions I raise about John
MacArthur's teachings? With all of the professors at The Master's College and
Seminary, the possibility that this is the best Johnson could do for MacArthur is a
testimony that "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark" (Shakespeare's Hamlet).
In these last days before the return of our Lord, many false teachers will arise and many
will be deceived. Jesus said, "Take heed that no man deceive you," and He even
warned that many would be deceived (Matthew 24). One of the greatest deceptions in the
world is Roman
Catholicism. One of the grave errors of the Roman Catholic church is the adoration of
the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. In spite of the Reformation teaching on the priesthood of
all believers, many Protestants have not escaped the error that Johnson and Simmons
exemplify in their indulgence in what some writers refer to as Protestant Popery. This
error involves the elevation of a Protestant pastor to the level of adoration given the
Roman Catholic Pope.
obfuscate: to cloud over, obscure; make dark or unclear; to
muddle; confuse; bewilder.
Of course Johnson and Simmons will be quick to deny this, but the article and its
inclusion on Johnson's web site reveal the extent to which Johnson and Simmons are willing
to go to evade the truth. The article is not a little twist here and a little exaggeration
there; it is at times a gross distortion of the evidence and an obvious attempt to
obfuscate the truth. Simmons has misstated the facts, relied almost entirely on hearsay
information in reporting on certain events, avoided responding to numerous criticisms of
MacArthur, prevaricated, and indulged in numerous logical fallacies. The deviousness
involved in the article and the running of it on Johnson's web site raise the question of
MacArthur being raised to the level of the Papacy in the minds and hearts of Johnson and
Simmons.
MacArthur is the pastor of Grace Community Church as well as being president of both The
Master's College and Seminary. MacArthur is the responsible head of the Grace/Master's
complex. As head, he is responsible for such things as books and tapes, classes offered,
faculty and teachers, administrative policies and practices, and even buildings and
grounds. MacArthur becomes doubly culpable when he ignores or relegates serious,
documented criticisms to subordinates or, worse yet, ignores them all together.
My original 13-page MacArthur report
referred to by Simmons (now 21 pages) includes some serious criticisms of both MacArthur's
teachings and other matters. But neither Johnson nor Simmons is willing to deal honestly
with these well-documented items. Is it because it might tarnish the image of
MacArthur?
The Israelites in the Old Testament (1 Samuel 8) wanted a king so they could be like the
other nations around them. The Israelites asked Samuel to "make us a king to judge us
like all the nations" (v. 5). While this displeased Samuel, God said, "for they
have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them"
(v. 7). The Roman Catholics follow and adore the Pope. This same devotion is evident in
Johnson and Simmons towards MacArthur, or why else would the truth be so perverted and
then presented on Johnson's web site? In Romans 1:25, Paul speaks of those "who
changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the
Creator." Are Johnson and Simmons putting the Creator and His Word first, or are they
involved in Protestant Popery and toadyism?
In Part One of Simmons' article, Simmons says, "Although Miesel's critique is 13
pages long, he directly quotes MacArthur only twice" (page 1). (All page numbers
referred to in referencing the Simmons' article are based on a print-out in
".txt" format from Johnson's web page using 12-point Times with top and bottom
margins of one-half inch each.) There are two gross errors in his criticism. First, in the
13-page critique, I quote MacArthur thirteen times, not twice. Moreover, the 13-page
critique referenced nine
other "attached" documents containing more than a hundred quotes
from MacArthur's books and tapes. All Simmons needed to do was to read what he already had
access to. The article makes it appear that Johnson and Simmons have not written anything
before, or they have never learned how to pursue references -- an excusable error for a
sophomoric writer, but not excusable when done publicly.
Simmons' second error can be seen through simple logic. To use Simmons' reasoning, if
MacArthur is quoted as saying something heretical only a few times, it would not matter
because, according to Simmons, 12-1/2 pages do not quote him at all. The tactic on the
part of Simmons is to belittle the other criticisms in the 13-page paper by diverting
attention away from the fact that many quotes of MacArthur are contained in the other
"attached" references.
According to the dictionary, a "fish story" is an "unbelievable
story." This term applies to Simmons' unbelievable and long story, which is his
article. A prominent name in Simmons' fish story is Darwin Fish, who is the pastor of a
house church in Southern California and whom Simmons conveniently uses as a red herring.
One logical fallacy used throughout Simmons' paper is known as the red
herring:
"The fallacy of red herring gets its name from the practice of using a herring, a particularly smelly fish when cooked to divert hunting dogs from the scent of a fox. To commit the fallacy of red herring in an argument is to draw attention away from an issue by raising some other, seemingly related issue. In so doing, the arguer attempts to sidetrack the opponent's argument" (Robert M. Johnson, A Logic Book, 2nd. Edition, [Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1992], p. 262).
Ironically, Simmons' red herring happens to be named Fish. Simmons spends considerable
time discrediting Fish and then uses his analysis as a red herring throughout his article.
Simmons uses 10 of 22 pages to tell his Fish story and then intersperses the Fish name in
the balance of his article. The obvious needs to be said: Rick Miesel is not
Darwin Fish, just as John MacArthur is not Darwin Fish. To continually connect the names
of Miesel and Fish is as erroneous as connecting the names of John MacArthur and Fish
merely because MacArthur was Fish's pastor for thirteen years.
To conserve space and time, only a few examples from Simmons' 10-page Fish story will be
addressed. On page 2 Simmons says, "Under the influence of Miesel, Fish came to
believe that virtually all other churches and pastors are devoid of the Spirit of God and
unfit to preach or teach." Simmons reports that six months after reading the 13-page
MacArthur critique, Fish became "deceived by Miesel." Simmons thus indulges in
the logical fallacy of false cause:
"The fallacy of false cause is committed when the arguer concludes that one event or thing A causes another event or thing B when in fact there is no good evidence of a causal relation" (R. Johnson, p. 246).
Think about it. Simmons admits that Fish was under the teaching and leadership of John
MacArthur from 1980 to 1993. For thirteen years MacArthur was Fish's pastor-teacher. Fish
was an active member at MacArthur's church. Then after reading my 13-page MacArthur
critique, Fish was supposedly "deceived by Miesel." If it took Fish one minute
to read each page of the 13-page report, he read it in thirteen minutes. Simmons would
have his readers believe that thirteen minutes of reading replaced thirteen years of
tutelage under MacArthur. (Moreover, Johnson contradicts himself in his "Fish FAQ," a highly-biased
article intended to discredit the character of Darwin Fish and posted by Johnson on
MacArthur's Grace To You web site -- Johnson there claims that I, Rick Miesel, am part of
Fish's "small cadre of followers." Which is it, Mr. Johnson? -- Fish a disciple
of Miesel, or Miesel a disciple of Fish?)
One can use the logical fallacy of false cause as easily to prove MacArthur responsible
for Fish's current theology as I am. One could even "prove" with the Fish story
and the false cause fallacy that MacArthur is an inept pastor-teacher because of Fish's
current thinking. There is a case of a well-known athlete who had MacArthur as his
pastor-teacher and then committed adultery. Is MacArthur to be held responsible? According
to Simmons' reasoning, the answer must be YES. If Simmons does not know that Fish has a
mind of his own, then Simmons knows little about him and should not even be writing about
him. The error is obvious, but Simmons probably never even thought about it, which is one
of his many problems in writing. When one begins with a high exaltation of an individual
(MacArthur), truth becomes ambiguous.
guru: any leader highly regarded by a group of
followers.
Simmons says, "Miesel did not say that Fish was a heretic, unbiblical or
even 'a little bit off' in his teaching" (page 9). It is interesting that Simmons is
willing to jump to all kinds of confusions for his readers as much by what I did not
say as by what I said. Now, if Simmons were fair, honest, and objective, he would apply
the same standard to his guru, John MacArthur. MacArthur has said nothing about my 13-page
critique. Maybe to use Simmons' logic, my next report revision should contain this
information and then use it to prove MacArthur doubly guilty of all the criticisms.
Simmons says, "[Miesel] said Fish was a pastor of a 'small independent Bible
church in California.' If Miesel really believes that the cult Fish presides over is a Bible
church, then, without a doubt, Miesel himself is a heretic" (page 9). This is another
example of Simmons' convoluted reasoning to protect the pastor he adores, as well as
another use of the false cause logical fallacy. Fish's church is referred to as "a
small independent Bible church" because that is how they describe themselves. There
are numerous churches across America that have Bible in their names or refer
to themselves as Bible churches. If someone's referring to a church in this way makes them
a heretic, then by Simmons' perverted reasoning, there are millions of heretics in the
world who are so condemned.
Throughout his article, Simmons says numerous untrue things that he does not document.
This surely raises the question of both his veracity and integrity. Three of many untrue
statements he makes are:
(1) "Rick Miesel seriously discredits himself by insisting that Fish is a legitimate pastor" (page 2);
(2) "Miesel has attempted to deceive his readers into thinking Fish is a faithful, humble servant of the Lord" (page 5); and
(3) "[Miesel] is attempting to portray a heretic like Fish as a sincere Berean" (page 9).
Here Simmons again demonstrates his extreme allegiance to MacArthur by these untrue
statements. He has no documentation for these statements because none exist. I have never
discussed whether or not Fish is any of the above. This is again a diversionary tactic by
Simmons to excuse and obscure my criticisms of MacArthur.
Simmons says in his Conclusion to Part One, "It is also important for the reader to understand that if Miesel is right about MacArthur, then most of Miesel's readers, as well as the vast majority of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians, are going to hell" (page 10). This is another one of the many logical fallacies used by Simmons. This fallacy is known as the appeal to force:
"An appeal to force is an argument based upon a threat. Arguers using this type of appeal try to persuade you by pointing out their power over you or by warning you of the bad consequences of refusing to accept their argument. ... You may recognize the fallacy of appeal to force by the presence of a threat either explicit or ... subtly disguised. Example: 'Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you do not bring in a verdict of guilty, you may be this killer's next victim'" (R. Johnson, p. 240).
One objective in my responding to Simmons' paper and Johnson's printing of it is to
show that neither a paid employee (Johnson) nor a MacArthur sycophant (Simmons) is capable
of being objective or of Biblically handling the issues involved. While MacArthur's paid
lackey (Johnson) may "smack his lips" at Simmons' response to my critique, he is
doing harm to MacArthur rather than coming to his aid. The Bible says, "Faithful are
the wounds of a friend: but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful" (Proverbs 27:6).
To put it simply: neither Johnson or Simmons are true friends of MacArthur, but rather
enemies. They are both committed to damage control rather than truth proclaiming. They are
more interested in "kissing up" to MacArthur than confronting him with truth.
Simmons' extensive use of logical fallacies and his prevarications seem motivated by his
devout devotion to MacArthur's image and thus ruptures his own credibility as a reliable
critic of anyone who raises questions about MacArthur.
fiat: any arbitrary order.
In Part Two of Simmons' article, Simmons makes a pathetic attempt to neuterize the
counseling psychologies (psychotherapy and its underlying psychologies) practiced in the
professing church, and specifically, the psychologies taught and practiced by John
MacArthur and Grace Community Church. It is evident that Simmons thinks this is necessary
in order neutralize the seriousness of MacArthur's teachings. Simmons apparently thinks
that if one's use of the counseling psychologies can be made of no more spiritual
significance than one's choice of neckwear, then MacArthur's psychologizing would also be
of no importance. In this attempt, Simmons makes three general observations about
psychology and is in error about two of them. Instead of referring to experts in each
instance, Simmons reveals his own arrogance by in effect saying, "It's so because I
say so." It is fact by fiat.
In his first observation, Simmons claims that psychology is not a false religion. In
doing so he uses himself as an authority. However, the reader of Simmons' article knows
nothing about what sources he used to come to that conclusion. Simmons says:
"Psychology has never pretended to be a religious system and has never attempted to create a religious system. In fact, most of the psychological schools of thought were started by atheists who specifically rejected religion, particularly Christianity" (page 11).
Simmons, in his ignorance, is not aware that the American Humanist Association is approved by the IRS as a religious nonprofit organization and has their tax-exempt status as one. Additionally, Simmons is further ignorant of the fact that atheism is not the absence of religion but rather a religion itself.
Simmons says: "Confusing psychology with a religious system allows someone like
Fish or Miesel to argue that accepting the validity of any psychological observation is
equivalent to accepting a false religion" (page 11).
Again, Simmons connects my name to Fish, which of course is his continual use of the red
herring logical fallacy. I don't speak for Darwin Fish and he doesn't speak for me.
My use of the word psychology refers to psychotherapy and its underlying
psychologies. This type of psychology deals with the same areas of concern already dealt
with in Scripture. I suggest Simmons read Chapter 2 of the Bobgans' book PsychoHeresy.
Refer to the footnotes in that chapter and then read the original sources. Simmons will
see that the Bobgans' conclusions are based on authorities in this special field. Note the
following examples:
(1) According to Victor Von Weizsaecker, "C. G. Jung was the first to understand that psychoanalysis belonged in the sphere of religion" (documentation is on page 243, PsychoHeresy, Chapter 2, endnote 2);
(2) psychiatrist Thomas Szasz says, "the human relations we now call 'psychotherapy' are, in fact, matters of religion ... we mislabel them as 'therapeutic' at great risk to our spiritual well-being" (see back cover The Psychological Way/The Spiritual Way by the Bobgans); and
(3) Psychologist Daniel Goleman quotes Chogyam Trungpa as saying, "Buddhism will come to the West as psychology." Goleman points out how Oriental religions "seem to be making gradual headway as psychologies, not as religions" (PsychoHeresy, p. 22).
A study of psychology as religion should convince even the most naive person that
psychology is a religion, and a false one at that. The reader should decide whether to
listen to Simmons' arrogant prating or to the experts who research and write on the
matter.
In observation two, Simmons says, "Psychology is not another
gospel" (page 12). (Bold added.) Here again, Simmons is in error. In fact, in his own
words, Simmons is found in falsity. He says, "In order for something to be classified
as 'another gospel' it must be a corruption of or a substitute for the true gospel -- not
merely something that is false" (page 12). Simmons proves my point by his statement.
Many writers have demonstrated where psychology is religion and many Christian writers
have shown how it is another gospel and how it corrupts the true gospel. Even secular
humanist, psychiatrist Thomas Szasz refers to psychotherapy as religion. He says, "It
is not merely a religion that pretends to be a science, it is actually a fake religion
that seeks to destroy true religion." (Emphasis added.) He warns about
"the implacable resolve of psychotherapy to rob religion of as much as it can, and to
destroy what it cannot."
And in his book The Culture of Narcissism, Christopher Lasch says,
"Therapy constitutes an anti-religion."
Szasz also says:
"Contrition, confession, prayer, faith, inner resolution, and countless other elements are expropriated and renamed as psychotherapy; whereas certain observances, rituals, taboos, and other elements of religion are demeaned and destroyed as symptoms of neurotic or psychotic 'illness.'"
(The above quotes are from PsychoHeresy, Chapter 2.)
In his book Our
Sufficiency in Christ (even though it contains a number of psychological
statements), John MacArthur, himself, speaks on this subject. He says:
"The infusion of psychotherapy into Christian counseling today smacks of Galatianism. It is little more than a systematic effort to eliminate the Holy Spirit from sanctification. It might be more subtle than legalistic attacks of the first-century Judaizers, but nonetheless poses the same monumental threat to the church" (John MacArthur, Our Sufficiency in Christ [Dallas, Word Publishing, 1991], p. 110).
The problem in Galatia was precisely that another gospel (i.e., a
substitute gospel) was being preached. When another means of sanctification is presented,
it is another gospel -- another means of attaining salvation -- which includes
sanctification, as well as justification and glorification. If Simmons is going to take
such a strong stand on behalf of MacArthur, he should at least be in touch with what
MacArthur himself teaches. (Or, has MacArthur changed his "beliefs" since he
wrote that book?)
Simmons' third observation on this issue is that "Christian psychology does not
exist" (page 12). In this section, he makes no reference to me and also does not
bring in his red herring Fish. One wonders why he wasted over a page on this item, unless
he hopes that the reader will conclude that I would disagree with that statement.
In this Part Two of his article, Simmons makes two serious statements about psychology
that are untrue, but solely dependent upon his say-so. Yet, Simmons presents no personal
credentials for doing so; nor does he rely on any authorities as researchers normally do.
His view that psychology is not a false religion and is not
another gospel is clearly based upon his need to prop up his guru. Personal exclamations
are always a nice shortcut to the hard work involved in coming to conclusions. However,
Simmons' credibility fails whenever he presents his own personal opinions as facts in
complex areas.
razzle-dazzle: a flashy display intended to
confuse, bewilder, or deceive.
pell-mell: in a jumbled, confused mass or manner; without
order or method; in wild, disorderly haste; with reckless speed; a jumble; confusion;
disorder.
Thus far, Simmons, in order to maintain MacArthur's credibility, has gone to cosmic
lengths and used argumentation by razzle-dazzle. Part of Simmons razzle-dazzle involves
his constant prevarication and use of logical fallacies. Facts are not important to
Simmons. Truth is not important to him either. Simmons reveals in his article a pell-mell,
overboard, irrational defense of MacArthur. It seems as if Simmons and Johnson link both
their own salvation and eternal destiny to MacArthur being right in all matters.
Simmons uses prevarication in this section as he has throughout his article. He says:
(1) "Miesel, like Darwin Fish, believes that Christians cannot make mistakes or teach anything erroneous, no matter how trivial. Fish, having been discipled by Miesel has stated very specifically that any doctrinal error, no matter how minor, is proof that the person who teaches it is going to hell" (page 14).
(2) "Miesel is suggesting that MacArthur is not a true Christian, but is an anti-Christian false teacher on his way to hell" (page 14).
(3) "According to Miesel, he [MacArthur] is actually a fraud, a wolf in sheep's clothing, who is using his charm and charisma to lead us all to hell with his false psychological gospel" (page 14).
With these as well as numerous other such statements about me, Simmons offers zero evidence. No quotes; no discussion; just more facts by fiats. Simmons apparently believes the old adage, "People will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." Simmons should listen to Thomas Jefferson who said:
"He who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it. ... this falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good dispositions" (Letter to Peter Carr [August 19, 1785]).
In defense of MacArthur, Simmons says:
"... most of us use this terminology [psychological] in a very general and non-technical way. In fact, most of this terminology is given a meaning in everyday usage that is far different from its technical definition. For example, if we see someone acting a little bit strange we might say, 'That guy is insane.' Do we really think the person we are referring to is insane? Usually, no. It is just a figure of speech today that means someone is acting odd or unusual. We speak of people who behave 'compulsively,' or say that a proud person has 'a big ego.' These are all terms that have their origins in psychology" (page 16).
Note the words say and figure of speech. There is no argument
about someone who might "say" these words or use a "figure of speech"
in conversation informally. But, MacArthur is not speaking
or writing informally. Also, we find out what someone means, not by looking at a word here
or a phrase there, but in context and in totality. Simmons has great difficulty doing
this, probably because he lacks experience in writing and because of his devotion to
MacArthur.
Simmons quotes MacArthur as saying:
"A true sense of self-worth comes from understanding our position in Christ. We have been chosen in Christ from before the foundation of the world. Knowing this gives us a sense of our significance and value to God" (page 16). (Quoted from The Believer's Life in Christ, MacArthur Bible Study Guide [1989/1995], p. 27.)
The following is excerpted from a dictionary definition of worth:
"worth: that quality of a person or thing that lends importance, value, merit, etc. and that is measurable by the esteem in which the person or thing is held.... deserving or worthy of; meriting ... syn. -- worth and value ... worth implies an intrinsic excellence resulting as from superior moral, cultural, or spiritual qualities, and value suggests the excellence attributed to something with reference to its usability, importance, etc."
When one adds the word self in front of the word worth, the
meaning of self-worth becomes obvious.
Simmons attempts to defend the above statement and following statement made by MacArthur:
"We were so important to God that He gave up His Son to die on our behalf. ... Thank God for considering you valuable enough to bestow such riches upon you. ... If you're struggling with a lack of self-worth, remember that you were important enough for God to give you to Jesus as an inheritance" (Simmons, page 27; bold added). (Quoted from The Believer's Life in Christ, MacArthur Bible Study Guide [1989/1995], pp. 27, 36, & 69-70.)
Phil Johnson once said the above quotes from MacArthur were "admittedly a poor way
for John to state his point" (September 1994 letter on file). Well, his point was
what the fact that God the Father sent his Son into the world says about man's value. And
it is the opposite of what the Scriptures teach! That's like saying that
since a person claims to be an ardent capitalist and then states, "hence I believe
there should be no private ownership of property," is choosing a poor way to make his
point. His statement proves the exact opposite of what he said
he believed. For clarification on this issue, I suggest Simmons, Johnson, and MacArthur
read "The Parable of Heathen," which is a section in Jim Owen's book Christian
Psychology's War on God's Word (pp. 62-64). Owen is an associate
professor of history at The Master's College.
Also in contradiction to what MacArthur teaches, Dr. Trevor Craigen, of The Master's
Seminary, questions the doctrine of redemption being used "to proclaim that man is
something worth dying for, and that one may now attribute to himself dignity, worth and
significance or may see himself as something worthwhile." He says:
"In Scripture no context presenting the wonder and grandeur of salvation even remotely suggests or attempts to apply the doctrine in such a way so that anyone may now validly conclude himself to be worth dying for, or himself to be worthwhile and significant. ... Salvation is, in all of its aspects, a testimony of the grace of God toward those who were unworthy of eternal life and of His love. Salvation signifies, not the worth of man, but the sinfulness of man" (T. Craigen, An Exegetical Foundation for a Biblical Approach to Thinking of Oneself, doctoral dissertation for Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, IN, 1984, p. 43).
I also recommend Simmons read Chapter 10 of Prophets of PsychoHeresy II by
Martin and Deidre Bobgan. There are also numerous other papers and books I could recommend
to Simmons, but it is doubtful that he is searching for the truth or interested in the
facts.
gerrymander: to manipulate unfairly so as to gain
advantage.
Simmons further quotes MacArthur as saying:
"'There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death' (Rom. 8:1-2). The liberation from sin those verses describe is the only basis on which we can really feel good about ourselves" (page 18, bold added). (Quoted from The Vanishing Conscience, [1994], p. 104.)
Simmons says, "MacArthur has simply borrowed the expression 'feel good about
ourselves' from the view he plainly opposes, emphasizing that self-esteem is no cure at
all for the defiled conscience" (pages 18-19). If one reads what MacArthur said and
then reads Simmons' interpretation, it is immediately apparent that MacArthur did not
say what Simmons claims. MacArthur said very plainly, "The liberation from sin those
verses [Romans 8:1-2] describe is the only basis on which we can really feel good
about ourselves." Simmons is making the point that MacArthur did not mean
what he said, but no amount of gerrymandering will save this one for Simmons. It reveals
that Simmons is willing to misrepresent MacArthur in order to maintain his image.
At this point in his article, Simmons once more employs his red herring Fish logical
fallacy. In fact, if one deleted every paragraph with Fish's name, there wouldn't be much
left of Simmons' critique. Simmons is certainly obsessed with Darwin Fish.
Simmons prevaricates again in his article. Simmons says:
"The reader should not miss the significance of the list of names Miesel cites from the book's [The Vanishing Conscience] dust cover. Miesel considers all of these people hell-bound deceivers. ... Miesel's attack on John MacArthur began when MacArthur declined to declare publicly whether certain Christian leaders are hell-bound heretics or not. ... The tragic fact is that both Miesel and Fish have now declared virtually everyone except themselves false teachers" (page 19).
As usual for Simmons, no footnote to my work, no quote from me, and no evidence
provided. Just fact by fiat and more use of logical fallacies. (As a point of fact, my
criticism of MacArthur began in 1988 when I learned of MacArthur's contradictory
endorsement of a Larry Crabb
book and film series -- contradictory because at the same time MacArthur was preaching
sermons against Crabb's brand of psychology.) Simmons is like a child who thinks that if
he says it's so, it must be so. Simmons would probably deny that he hates the truth and
also deny that he is willing to misrepresent even MacArthur in order to save MacArthur's
reputation, but the facts would prove him wrong.
In the last three pages of his critique, Simmons lists nine items, which he discusses. I
respond to each one as follows:
1) Simmons asks, "Why not give MacArthur credit for seeing the problems with Crabb
instead of bringing up the past?" (page 20). Simmons is evidently not aware that to
this day MacArthur has never made a public declaration repenting of his own promotion of
Larry Crabb, a clinical psychologist. The Crabb involvement at the Grace/Master's complex
is kept quiet rather than being made public so MacArthur's congregation and students can
learn from his mistake. My purpose of bringing up the MacArthur-Crabb example was for a
historical lesson in how MacArthur typically handles such situations. Moreover, MacArthur
still incorporates Crabb's teachings and continues to employ Crabb-trained faculty.
2) While MacArthur has removed some of the books of the psychologizers, others remain,
including those of New Agers and Catholic-promoters. And, in certain instances, a
considerable amount of time elapsed before getting rid of the ones he did remove. There
are still a number of books of questionable "value" at the church bookstore, for
which MacArthur must take responsibility. Within this item Simmons adds,
"Additionally, it should be pointed out that Miesel considers virtually everyone
but Fish and himself to be psychologically oriented" (page 20; bold added). Another
prevarication, another fact by fiat, and another red herring Fish.
3) Simmons says, "Miesel complains that MacArthur lists the books of Covenant
theologians. Yet he himself heavy [sic] utilizes the writings of Dr. Jay Adams -- a
covenant theologian" (page 20). What I recommend of Adams has little or no covenant
theology. Some of the books at the Grace Community Church bookstore are rife with covenant
theology. Maybe Simmons is suggesting that MacArthur now supports covenant theology. If
that's his point, I missed it.
4) Simmons says, "Miesel accuses MacArthur of allowing the distribution of a tract
entitled 'You're Special,' written by Ted Griffin" (page 20). This is another example
of Simmons' pathetic attempt to protect MacArthur from the obvious criticism he deserves.
The tract was in the Grace Community Church tract rack, available to the thousands of
people at the church. But Simmons, to cover up, asks, "Does Miesel really think
MacArthur is personally responsible for every minute thing that happens
at Grace Community Church?" (page 20). (Emphasis added.) (Simmons also claims,
"Anyone could have placed them [the tracts] there." Is this what MacArthur and
Johnson are claiming? -- that someone, unbeknown to Grace Church, found a tract published
by the same publisher in the same format as the others in the tract rack, and snuck it in
the rack in the dead of night?)
In terms of Biblical anthropology, the Griffin tract is very important, not a "minute
thing." And, what appears in the tract rack is very important. Apparently Simmons
believes that heresy is of "minute" importance. I cannot agree with him. One
difference between Simmons and me is that he is willing to excuse heresy and I am not.
Simmons takes heresy lightly and I do not.
Simmons then babbles yet another "Miesel and Fish" followed by the usual
prevarication. Simmons asks, "... why would [Miesel] make Fish's material available
to thousands of people all over the United States and around the world?" (page 20).
This is untrue. It is an example of the falsity that occurs throughout Simmons' article.
5) Simmons says, "Miesel is unhappy about the fact that MacArthur once quoted
favorably from Meier's book Christian Child-Rearing and Personality Development
" (page 20). Wrong again! The problem is twofold. First, in my criticism, which
Simmons claims to have read, but gives little evidence of doing so, I said:
"In September/October of 1989, MacArthur's radio tape ministry re-aired a 1979 series, The Fulfilled Family, in which MacArthur spends considerable time quoting from and recommending the works of so-called Christian psychiatrist Paul Meier, with whom MacArthur now claims to disagree."
It's a contradiction, but Simmons doesn't get it. If MacArthur
disagrees with Meier, then why for all the years from 1979 right up until today, has he
not removed references to Meier and state publicly his disagreement?
6) Simmons says: "Miesel complains that The Master's College has terminated its
psychology curriculum and replaced it with Biblical counseling. According to Miesel and
Fish, biblical counseling is too worldly" (page 21). Once more, we read Simmons'
mention of the red herring Fish. I never complained "that The Master's College
terminated its psychology curriculum" or said that "biblical counseling is too
worldly." My complaint is that MacArthur's so-called Biblical counseling program is
rife with psychological teachings taught by a psychologizing faculty.
7) Simmons says: "Miesel learned from MacArthur's own daughter that the Grace Book
Shack has discontinued offering [Gary and Anne Marie] Ezzo's
materials in the bookstore. Miesel (or a friend) phoned the Book Shack to ask if that was
true. An employee confirmed that it was true, and trying to be helpful offered Ezzo's
address. To Miesel, that kind of thing is evidently proof that MacArthur is going to
hell" (page 21).
Wrong again! All MacArthur's daughter told me in an e-mail was that MacArthur and Gary
Ezzo "are not associated in any way ... John does not agree at all with his
[Ezzo's]
methods." A friend then called the Book Shack to see if "not associated in any
way" included a purging of Ezzo's materials from the bookstore. Even so, look how
basic elementary common sense continually eludes Simmons on even the simplest items. Why
would the Book Shack employee refer anyone to the Ezzos when the Book Shack itself stopped
carrying the materials because the Ezzos' work was no longer recommended? Note the
gratuitous last sentence. The sentence has no justification or proof. It is another
prevarication and added evidence of Simmons' vain imagination.
8) There is no question that MacArthur uses psychological terminology. Even Simmons admits
that. However, Simmons, who majors in logical fallacies, sets up another one. Simmons
says: "Miesel is unable to distinguish the difference between the innocent use of
psychological terminology and the acceptance of the concepts the terminology represents in
a clinical setting" (page 21).
Note that Simmons gives the reader only two alternatives. This is known as the either/or
fallacy:
"mistakenly assuming that there are only two possible solutions to some problem or that solving some problem consists of choosing between only two alternatives" (R. Johnson, page 248).
There are many people who use psychological ideas but do not use them
"innocently" or "in a clinical setting." The psychological ideas and
their psychological meanings have become part and parcel of many people's thinking in and
out of the church, and that is one reason I criticize it. MacArthur adds to the
psychological confusion when he communicates in psychological language. Simmons needs to
carefully read the more than one hundred psychological quotes of MacArthur that I provide
in my 18-pages of references "attached" to the original 13-page report. Even a
cursory reading of those 18-pages of references would clearly show an unbiased person the
total lack of innocence in MacArthur's psychological terminology.
9) In this section, Simmons discusses my criticism of MacArthur related to the
"Evangelicals and Catholics Together" (ECT) document and the subsequent
"Clarification Agreement" that MacArthur helped write. Simmons uses the
editorial brackets to make statements such as "[this is patently untrue],"
"[untrue]," and "[wholly untrue]" (page 21). How does the reader know?
Because Simmons says so? It is more fact by fiat. Simmons reveals his ignorance of the
entire ECT matter by referring to the "four one-hour television broadcasts" of
the John Ankerberg Show. The fact is, there were seven one-half hour television programs,
of which only the first six were aired. I have viewed all seven of the unedited
programs. It is doubtful that Simmons even viewed the edited versions.
Simmons demonstrates throughout his article that he prefers prevarication to
deliberation. His entire article raises questions about his honesty, integrity, and
motivation.
Simmons' conclusion predictably repeats his "Miesel and Fish" mantra, which
should be no surprise to the reader. Simmons adds yet another prevarication when he says,
"Miesel believes MacArthur must toe the line on whatever Rick Miesel deems truth, and
distance himself from whoever [sic] Miesel deems a 'heretic'" (page 22). Again, no
footnote. No proof.
There is a game children play called "Simon Says." In the game one can only
move when the leader says, "Simon Says." If anyone does what the leader says
without also saying, "Simon Says," he is penalized. Well, Simmons has made up
his own little game called "Simmons Says." If one does not agree with what
Simmons says, then one will be penalized with logical fallacies, prevarications, fact by
fiat, and perverted truth. Well, I don't intend playing "Simmons Says." I would
rather follow "Thus saith the Lord."
In the title to this present article, I posed the question of Johnson and Simmons toadying
up to MacArthur. In this response, I have provided evidence to support that they are
involved in toadyism. However, it's more than that. Simmons' article reveals that he has
perverted truth in a variety of ways. Such an extreme deviation appears to be driven by a
worship of the creature (MacArthur) more than the Creator. The practice of Protestant
Popery has resulted in Simmons and Johnson becoming sycophantic about MacArthur.
Simmons knows my statement of faith.
It is detailed, both in writing and on my web site. Yet, the only thing one knows about
Simmons' "statement of faith" is that it appears to be a paraphrase of an old
hymn:
"My hope is built on nothing less than John MacArthur's righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame but wholly lean on MacArthur's fame." (Apologies to the hymn writer of "The Solid Rock.")
And Phil Johnson's eagerness to post Simmons' paper on his web site indicates that he
would surely sing a hearty Amen.
Simmons appears to be so anxious to protect his idol (MacArthur) that he has gone to
cataclysmic extremes. Simmons appears bent on supporting MacArthur at all costs
and discrediting me at the expense of truth, honesty, and even his own personal integrity.
And Phil Johnson, as a MacArthur employee and a Grace Church elder, is equally culpable.
One would think that Johnson would have more brains than to put Simmons' article out on
the Internet.
Hopefully, my response will cause Simmons, Johnson, and MacArthur to re-evaluate how far
they have deviated from what God would have them do and then to repent. Then maybe the
four of us could sing together, "Soli Deo Gloria!"
Jeff Simmons was an acquaintance with whom I discussed the Darwin Fish situation,
including Fish's teachings. Simmons started having telephone conversations with Phil
Johnson sometime around June of 1996, at which time Johnson sent Simmons a print copy of
the "Fish FAQ."
Simmons asked for a hard copy of my report on MacArthur in August of 1996, at which time I
sent him the print copy containing the entire 31 pages (the 13-page report plus the 18
pages of references). Sometime around October of 1996, Fish rebuffed Simmons. Around the
middle of November, Simmons emailed me to say that he agreed with Johnson's concoction of
events, and would send me his (Simmons') paper he was writing on the matter for my
comments. The result was Johnson's web site posting around December of 1996. Simmons never
did send me a copy for review.
Bottom line, there is much information that one has to take on faith -- faith that Fish
and/or I am telling the truth or that Johnson and Simmons are. After all, much of the
information I have is second-hand, since Johnson would not allow witnesses in the meeting
he held with Fish and two other Grace Church elders in March of 1994. (For more detail,
see the "Personal Note" at the end of my MacArthur
"General Teachings" report.) So, it's one man's word against another's.
However, there are certain facts that I know to be true, and thereby, know Johnson's
version is raw fabrication in many places.
For example, in Part One of Simmons' article, Simmons claims that Johnson showed
"great patience and grace" in dealing with Fish (page 7). Yet in an April 1994
letter from Johnson to Fish (which is posted on Johnson's "Fish FAQ" page), Johnson
accuses Fish of "frequently" beating his children "until they are
bruised," of "spong[ing] off other people, even to the point of living in their
homes," and of never having "held a steady job that would support [his]
family." I have seen Fish's children; they have not been beaten (or if they have,
Fish didn't do a very good job of it). Secondly, Fish was living in a "guest
house" provided by a member of his church, which was in lieu of a salary. Does this
make every pastor living in a parsonage a mooch? Thirdly, before accepting the call to
this house church, Fish had worked for four years for the L.A. County Probation
Department, and at the time of his resignation, was making over $40,000 per year with full
health and retirement benefits. Yet Johnson says Fish "never held a steady job."
Having first-hand knowledge of these facts, and seeing how Johnson has passed on rumor and
innuendo as fact, how am I to accept Johnson's word on the matters where I only have
second-hand information? I can't.
I have never denied that Fish used my materials, as any man could without any permission
from me, since I have no copyright on my printed reports or articles. Fish sent me copies
of all of the correspondence between him and Johnson. (Interestingly, on the "Fish FAQ" page, Johnson has
posted all of his correspondence to Fish, but none of the four response
letters from Fish to him.) At the end of an article on MacArthur in my May/June 1994
newsletter, I gave the address to which people could write to get the three tapes of Fish
critiquing MacArthur's teachings. According to Simmons and Johnson, this makes me a
vigorous supporter of Fish.
What was Darwin Fish's offense that started this mess? Johnson claims that Fish singled
out a woman after a Sunday evening membership induction ceremony at Grace Church, and
tried to turn her against MacArthur and to get her to attend his (Fish's) church. Fish's
story is that after the service that evening, he personally gave the three tapes
critiquing MacArthur's teachings to MacArthur (which was the sole reason Fish had for
attending the service). In a somewhat heated discussion, MacArthur and Fish were overheard
by this lady, who, when the opportunity arose, approached Fish and asked him what he found
wrong with MacArthur's teachings. He told her, and in the process, Johnson overheard this
conversation and accused Fish of proselytizing the lady. (By the way, this was the first
time Johnson knew Fish even existed; during the nearly thirteen years that Fish had
attended Grace Community Church, Johnson had never met Fish, nor had he even heard of his
name.) No one knows which story is true, but with the experience I have had with Johnson,
Fish's story is much more plausible.
But again, Fish is the red herring here. The issue is MacArthur's refusal to be
accountable for his false teachings. To quote Johnson: "I am aware that the whole
issue with Miesel is MacArthur. He's obsessed, and in an unhealthy way, in my opinion. And
as far as 'answering' for his [MacArthur's] teaching, MacArthur already answers to 40
elders, the board and faculty of a college and seminary, and dozens of other people"
(1996 e-mail from Johnson to a third party). See the churchiosity here! MacArthur only has
to answer to his internally approved Board. Whatever he teaches publicly cannot be
questioned outside of the Boardroom. If you question him, you're "obsessed in an
unhealthy way." If I'm wrong in my critique of MacArthur, then why not show me my
error? That is, also, all Fish asked of the religious aristocracy at
Grace Church.
Lance Quinn at the time of the "Fish incident" was MacArthur's top
administrative assistant. I have known Quinn since 1988. Johnson claims that Lance Quinn
had "a long and frustrating interaction" with me several years ago, supposedly
trying to set me straight. Simmons says, "When Miesel first contacted John
MacArthur,
MacArthur's personal assistant, Lance Quinn, spent many hours in phone conversations and
via mail, answering the many questions Miesel put to him. Miesel subsequently made Pastor
Quinn a target of his published attacks" (page 9). The truth is that I had some
conversations with Quinn beginning in May of 1988 (two telephone calls and three brief
letters from Quinn, plus one face-to-face encounter in July 1991 and another in October
1991 -- see my MacArthur
"General Teachings" report for details of these meetings and letters.) From
this so-called "long and frustrating interaction," I have documented in my files
five different times that Quinn was not honest with me.
One time Quinn became furious with me when I checked up on him and caught him in a lie.
Quinn told me on the phone in the early summer of 1990 that ALL the Larry Crabb materials had
been removed from the Grace Church Book Shack, and that he (Quinn) had personally
supervised the packing and shipping of Crabb's books back to the publisher. I had a friend
go into the bookstore two weeks after this conversation, and ALL the
Crabb' books were
still there for sale! (The books were eventually removed, but not until June of 1991,
almost eleven months after Quinn said they had been!) Quinn was upset with me because I
hadn't asked him to go to the bookstore and see if he had done
what he said he had, but instead, I had used an outside party. I know this is laughable,
but this is what it's like dealing with the MacArthur sycophants at Grace Church.
Johnson maintains that I should be ignored because I "lacked the discernment to see
that Darwin Fish was a wacko" (1996 e-mail from Johnson to a third party). Here we go
again -- shifting the target to the Fish red herring. The issue becomes Darwin Fish
instead of John MacArthur's teachings. I wouldn't be surprised if MacArthur, Johnson, et
al., thank God every day for Darwin Fish (much like the O.J. defense team being thankful
for racism in general and Mark Furman specifically). Without Darwin Fish as MacArthur's
Mark Furman, to whom could they deflect the valid criticism they receive? They might
actually have to answer for their aberrations, false teachings, and heresies.
An e-mail from Jeff Simmons regarding my "Response to John MacArthur's
Sycophants" was sent to someone who forwarded it to me. In his e-mail, Simmons says,
"There is one thing I need to correct. The critique was written by both Phil Johnson
and I [sic]. Phil wrote large sections of that critique."
The original article titled "A
Defense of John MacArthur Against Accusations of Rick Miesel of Biblical Discernment
Ministries" is found on Phil Johnson's web site. Johnson lists Simmons as the
sole author. Johnson even prefaces the article with the following statement:
"A Note from Phil Johnson: Jeff Simmons contacted me by e-mail several months ago with concerns about Rick Miesel's accusations. After learning the truth about some of these matters, he graciously offered to write the following article, and then gave me permission to post it here. Thanks to Jeff for the many hours he put into researching and writing this."
It is obvious that either Simmons is lying or Johnson is lying. From my past experience
with Johnson, I would say that he is the one who lacks the simple integrity to be correct
about the authorship of the article. And, from all the evidence that I have on this
subject, I would agree with Simmons' statement that "Phil [Johnson] wrote large
sections of that critique."
I would have no problem with Johnson asking for assistance from Simmons and then taking
full responsibility for the article. But to write large portions of it and then say that
Simmons alone did it is a LIE. And why did Simmons become involved in this lie? The answer
is in my response above -- TOADYISM.
sophomoric: self-assured, opinionated, etc., though immature.
ad hominem: appealing to one's prejudices rather than to reason, as by
attacking one's opponent rather than debating the issue.
Phil Johnson has replied to my "toadyism" article at the end of his co-authored
article, which he says Simmons wrote. His sophomoric response was true to form. In his
three brief paragraphs, he again avoids the real issues, and challenges my original
critique of MacArthur by reducing the whole issue to one of ad hominem and Darwin Fish's
character. Phil Johnson will do almost anything to protect MacArthur, even to the extent
of using one of the lowest forms of argumentation, called ad hominem. It is unfortunate
that Johnson gives no evidence of having ever seen a book on logic and logical fallacies,
and yet profusely uses logical fallacies.
Johnson, in his desperation to protect MacArthur at any price, is determined to link up
Darwin Fish and me. What modest powers Johnson has of intellect, reasoning, and academic
prowess are all prostituted to the protection of MacArthur.
John Wilkes once said, "Give me a grain of truth and I will mix it up with a great
mass of falsehood so that no chemist shall ever be able to separate them." While
Johnson has probably never heard of Wilkes, he nonetheless seems to be trying his hardest
to accomplish the very thing Wilkes describes. One example from Johnson's response should
demonstrate how oleaginous he is. Johnson says:
"At the height of their friendship, Miesel made a pilgrimage to sit under Fish's teaching in a Sunday service at "God's Word Fellowship," Fish's little living-room congregation in Green Valley, CA (an out-of-the-way community that would not have been on Miesel's itinerary had he not gone there expressly to "worship" with Fish). That service was recorded, and the tape includes Fish's fawning acknowledgement of his mentor's presence."
Johnson uses an acquaintanceship as equal to a friendship because he probably does not
know the difference. I accept the fact that Johnson is impressed with my use of a
dictionary, but it is obvious that Johnson doesn't care to use one. Johnson speaks of a
"pilgrimage" as equal to a visit. Johnson refers to it as an "an
out-of-the-way community that would not have been on Miesel's itinerary." The truth
is that we were visiting friends in Southern California and were in proximity to Green
Valley.
Johnson refers to "Fish's fawning acknowledgement of his mentor's presence." In
addition to twisting words, Johnson also twists events. Apparently Johnson believes that
if Fish made a "fawning acknowledgement" of me, then I must be
"fawning" over him, or maybe caused him to fawn over me. (The truth of the
matter is that if there is any fawning going on, it has been Johnson and Simmons fawning
over MacArthur, not Miesel or Fish fawning over each other.) I repeat, what I have said
before: "Miesel is not responsible for what Fish says and does, and Fish is not
responsible for what Miesel says and does." Also, Johnson engages in double-talk
here, as I am sometimes falsely accused of mentoring Fish, and he is sometimes falsely
accused of mentoring me.
Alfred, Lord Tennyson once said, "That a lie which is half a truth is ever the
blackest of lies."
Thus, Johnson, who is clumsy at best at the use of words and unwilling to use the
dictionary at worst, substitutes willy-nilly one word for another absent their true
meanings. It reminds me of Alice in Wonderland:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master, that's all."
In Johnson's Humpty Dumpty mind, he makes words mean what he wishes and therefore
doesn't need a dictionary.
Based on all the correspondence between Johnson and me and the fact that, according to
Simmons, Johnson was the major author of the original "Simmons'" article, raises
the question of whether a man of such questionable character should continue on as an
elder at Grace Community Church. Further, whether he should even remain as a staff member
at Grace Community Church. I suggest at minimum some discipling of Johnson should be
undertaken.
When one adds up Johnson's ineptitude, his inability to argue coherently, his prolific use
of logical fallacies, the twisting of truth, and a Humpty-Dumpty-like mindset, one must
raise the question of his qualifications for elder and employee at Grace Community Church.
The coup de grace to his career may be his lying about the authorship of the article he
said was written by Simmons. It's a sad day indeed when an elder of a professing
evangelical church resorts to lying in order to make his convoluted personal views look
like those of an impartial outside party. Very sad indeed.
Will this be another case of inactivity on the part of MacArthur similar to the Crabb and
Ezzo situations? I hope not. But don't hold your breath.
