Here’s a tip: When someone accuses a truth-teller of arrogance, it’s because they can find no fault in the truth itself.
Yet, what many of us have been saying over the weekend is that it has nothing to do with how MacArthur said it. It’s what he said. These gutless wonder coward-pastors are just afraid to say they’ve gone the way of the United Methodists and other estrogen-fueled quilting circles.
You see, it wasn’t really about how MacArthur said it. It’s that he said it. The reason why so many complain about how he said it (which was super polite) is that they are afraid to just come out of the egalitarian closet and say, “I’m for women preachers, oppose the Word of God, and deny Biblical inerrancy.”
Trying to get them to just come out and admit they deny the inerrancy of Scripture is like pulling teeth, but they will always first complain about tone. It’s easier than just straight-forwardly stating their position.
It is easier for emotionally lactating males to lament “tone” than to stand up like men and simply state their real positions. When it comes to defending their position, they are just far more comfortable squatting than standing.
I could not put my finger on it until I read these words from an article published by Pulpit & Pen. I have had a few people accuse me of being "abrasive" with my writing. I have addressed this idea before (here and here), but now I have a clearer understanding of why these individuals were doing what they did. Rather than address the content of what I wrote, because they cannot answer the truth of what I wrote, their first complaint was the perceived "tone" of my writing. These individuals did not like what I had to say, but because they could find no fault with the truth I was sharing they decided to attack the messenger instead.
The above words used by Pulpit & Pen are exactly true of these individuals: "gutless wonder cowards," "estrogen-fueled," "closet-egalitarians," "emotionally lactating men," and "more comfortable squatting than standing." Of course these individuals would be offended by such language because the truth hurts.
These individuals are more concerned with their image and/or the image of their "church," than they are with the truth of God's Word. They would sooner water down the truth and make it palatable than to do anything or allow anything that might tarnish their image or affect their reputation. These individuals and their "churches" are narcissistic. God forbid they should actually take a stand behind the Bible and elevate it to a position of sole authority instead of continuing to filter it through their belief system. These same individuals oppose the Word of God and deny biblical inerrancy, but they would never admit it.
Anything else is easier than admitting the truth. You will witness this quite often among professing Christians from various denominations. Whatever biblical truth they choose to reject, rather than admit they oppose the Word of God and deny biblical inerrancy, they will find some other means of attacking the truth they willfully choose to reject and rebel against. It is easier to play these childish games than to come out and admit they are in favour of some sin or other, or some error or other, or some heresy or other. For many of these people, despite the words that might come out of their mouths, the Bible is not their absolute, sole, and final authority. Something else is!
But they do not want to admit it to themselves or to others.