James MacDonald’s Self-Contradictory Criticism

Last week we looked at Mark Driscoll’s Twitter post in which he said something like “monuments were never made to critics.” And we considered the fact that he was criticizing critics and what a contradiction that was. The article can be viewed [here]. Well, last night I noticed a Twitter post by James MacDonald that reminded me of Driscolls’. MacDonald’s post read, “Using twitter to PUBLICLY criticize anyone, even if you believe they deserve it is a fail. #autoblock.” I guess anyone who criticizes publicly on Twitter will be automatically blocked by James MacDonald. The question I have is, Will he be blocking himself?

Here is another example of someone making a self refuting statement. He is publicly criticizing those who publicly criticize. MacDonald understands how important Twitter can be in giving  counsel, correction,  etc. In fact, he is warning others about those who publicly criticize. So what is the problem with warning others through Twitter about wolves in the church and any error? In the follow up video to the Elephant Room 2, MacDonald repeated something pretty interesting. He said that we don’t know people until we talk to them. On the surface that seems like a valid statement. It’s true, I don’t know someone personally until we speak. What MacDonald means though is that we can’t criticize someone until we meet them. Had he met Chris Rosebrough before throwing him out of the Elephant Room? Will he be voting on election day since he hasn’t met all of the candidates, and shouldn’t criticize them?

I live in South FL. Let’s say that a huge storm was going to rip through South FL and travel through to North Carolina, but the North Carolinans and those in between didn’t know yet. Wouldn’t it be proper for me to warn them in some way? Tell them of the damage that had occured and the severity so that they can take necessary precautions? Would it be wrong for me to get on Facebook or Twitter and warn people whose phone numbers I may not have? What if we witnessed someone poisoning a water supply that was making its way out to the rest of the US? Should we warn them not to drink it? Doesn’t even the secular media have enough sense to do this? In the same way, when wolves are attempting to poison believers with false doctrine, it is necessary to warn others, and to show them the Scriptures.

Arguments that attack people personally so that no one listens to their arguments are an attempt to shift people’s trust toward you. Mix in some ideologies like 1) Love Jesus and not Doctrine. 2) Go serve instead of wanting to go deeper. 3) Critics are being divisive. 4) As long as you are Trinitarian, that’s cool. And voila, the end result is someone who is so ignorant, they will believe whatever you say. That sounds crazy right? Go visit a seminary. You got handfuls of folks who can tell you what their pastor believes, but can’t defend it biblically. You got people who are in love with their heros, and if you so much as say that their hero is tall, they will think you are being divisive.

MacDonald illustrates exactly what is wrong with professing Christians today. They have allowed an unbiblical definition of love and of unity to be the presupposition by which they approach Scripture. They lack discernment and any type of critical thinking. And as a result of “not knowing someone until you meet them,” MacDonald has given TD Jakes the right hand of fellowship despite the fact that Jakes’ Word Faith theology was never attacked. Yes, and I mean attacked. A wolf who is on the offensive and trying to get fat on sheep blood should not be stroked and combed and bathed and fed. It should be killed. I don’t mean we should physically kill heretics. We don’t fight with earthly physical weapons, but spiritual ones. But their theology should be killed – If not by preaching the truth to the wolf itself and praying for it that God may grant faith and repentance to such a one, then by teaching doctrine correctly to the church so that the false doctrine can not permeate their minds. Do you think Jakes’ theology of the trinity was really attacked? Do you think it was even caged? No. But as long as there is unity and don’t FAIL by publicly criticizing.