There’s a certain science to public relations. If you defend your reputation against every attack, you invite more scrutiny and attackers. If you respond to no attacks on your reputation, the public will assume guilt. There’s a certain balance to this, as it demands one chooses their battles wisely. Punching back at anonymous internet trolls is unwise and gives them disproportionate exposure. Not fighting back against people who hold sizable platforms is an invitation for trouble.
In the past, men of renown have had different approaches. George Washington was willing to sue for libel and slander back before slander laws were restricted to the ability to prove damages. In contrast, Thomas Jefferson preferred to let his reputation precede him when accused of siring a child with Sally Hemmings. This claim lacks credible evidence but nonetheless survives as common myth to this day.
But what I notice about John MacArthur is that he has a tendency to let Phil Johnson defend his reputation for him. And that is strange. It’s frustrating to watch or be more vested in defending someone’s reputation more than they are. In 2017, we saw this with Roy Moore. Accused of pederasty during a campaign for US Senate, Moore offered little defense against the Washington Post article that implicated him. Being a pederast for such a brief window of time when one otherwise has a record of being above reproach after numerous opportunities for this story to break in prior elections was enough to poke holes in the story. But Roy Moore did a terrible job of defending himself and lost because of it. In the end, he decided to not defend his reputation and suffered accordingly.
Brett Kavanaugh, a year later, was slandered for being a gang rapist after receiving the SCOTUS nomination. He relied on the process to see him through, naively thinking that the accusations were legal rather than political. Christine Blasey Ford was obviously lying through her teeth, but the Republicans has a special prosecutor question her before the committee and she did such an awful job that she had to publish report afterwards questioning Ford’s credibility. And then Kavanaugh went Hulk smash, which he later apologized for. I use these examples to emphasize that innocent people can be do this too.
It’s frustrating to watch, but ironically, I do not see any MacArthur fans frustrated with MacArthur’s insistence on having Phil Johnson defend his reputation for him from various attacks over the years. Justin Peters recently interviewed Johnson to respond to the Julie Roys article and major discrepancies in a couple of MacArthur’s stories. The latter is actually legitimate. I did not watch because I cannot get past the fact that MacArthur should be doing that interview, not Johnson. It’s one thing to ignore Julie Roys and her awful reporting on John MacArthur. But I find it incredibly odd to let Phil Johnson fight your battles for you if her claims are to be challenged.
So what say you?
Am I wrong for finding it weird that Phil Johnson will defend John MacArthur more than John MacArthur will defend John MacArthur?
A call to action
Evangelical Dark Web is an online ministry that fights to maintain the orthodoxy’s and orthopraxy of Evangelical Christianity. We are specifically set up to fight three false gospels in particular: the Social Justice Gospel, Prosperity Gospel, and Popularity Gospel. We also do in depth research to answer reader questions about false teachers. Consider subscribing to support these efforts.