10 February 2006

John MacArthur arrested in Mississippi

by Phil Johnson

OK, this is really old news, but I like the way Ligon Duncan tells the story.

He's in the jailhouse now.

In the years when conflict was rife over civil rights legislation in the deep south, John MacArthur was locked up by a gung-ho Mississippi sheriff for preaching the gospel. MacArthur was leading a group of young people on a summer missions trip, doing evangelistic work in some of Mississippi's most impoverished communities. At the time, MacArthur was working in partnership with John Perkins, a respected black Christian leader.

Compared to everything Perkins suffered in those years (see "The preacher and the Klansman" by reporter Jerry Mitchell), MacArthur's time in the clink was a short-lived and fairly mild ordeal. Perkins, on the other hand, was variously tortured, imprisoned, harassed, and threatened with murder by Klansmen and corrupt law-enforcement officials because of his evangelistic preaching in those years.

Anyway, the incident left a profound and lasting impact on MacArthur. He doesn't speak about it often. (In 25 years, I have heard him mention it only four or five times.) But it's clear this episode caused him to realize as a young minister that the task we are called to is deadly serious; the stakes are high in the battle for the gospel; and the preacher who ministers faithfully cannot expect to have the praise of men.

Selah.

And on a completely different subject

The above video also reminded me of something I've been meaning to mention...

I've added an important new link in the lower right sidebar (look for the graphic just under the blogrules). It will take you to the "Together for the Gospel" website's registration page. The conference will be April 26–28, 2006 at the Galt House Hotel, Louisville, KY.



I'll be teaching at a conference in Sicily that week, so I can't attend. But if you can possibly make it, I highly recommend that you be there. It's going to be a fun, no-holds-barred plain-spoken festival of preaching and teaching featuring several important Christian leaders who (though they may disagree on a lot of secondary stuff) share a common passion for the gospel and a commitment to stand side by side in its defense. Watch the videos if you want a sample of the kind of interaction that happens when these guys get together.

Phil's signature

35 comments:

Patrick said...

Phil,

It's obvious to many of us your closeness with John MacArthur -- are you going to be his biographer?

Phil Johnson said...

Patrick,

I'd love to do that, but:

1. He doesn't want a bio written while he's still alive.

2. I hope I don't outlive him.

I am, however, collecting stuff to make the job easier for someone else someday.

Castusfumus said...

MacArthur has got to go down as one of the most godly mentors of our day. What a privilige to serve our risen Savior in the same time frame!!

candyinsierras said...

I went to a conference years ago featuring John Perkins. He is still in pain due to the beatings he received way back in the days where he was arrested. He was beaten severely at the time, and forgave his tormentors.

I totally respect the Together for the Gospel team. They are a great example of standing up for the essential truth of the gospel, and kidding around about secondary issues, ummmm....not like so many of us bloggers.

Moo Zuba said...

*whew* You nearly made my heart stop with that headline. I'm a relatively young Christian and had never even heard reference to that event. I do, however, have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for John MacArthur. I'd like to say "good use of the element of surprise" but I'll have to wait until I get over the initial shock.

Relieved and embarassed,
moozuba

centuri0n said...

I want to be John MacArthur's biographer.

marc said...

Phil I also linked to this on PURGATORIO, but created a bit more detailed graphic, feel free to download it and use it if you like...

Steve said...

Phil:

Having worked at GTY in the past and being an editor, I frequently wonder about who would write John's biography. I've always envisioned you as the one who brings all the information together. I GREATLY appreciate the fact John doesn't want it written while he's still alive. In my opinion, too many "notables" these days have their biographies written much too early. I like the attitude of one of the authors I work with--she said she doesn't want her biography written while she's still alive because biographies have a sense of finality to them...and she doesn't want the feeling that her "ministry is all done" BEFORE it really is all done.

Joe said...

I would NOT like to be John McArthur's biographer, but I would like to be ABLE to be if I wanted to be, but I am so unqualified. Trust me, he wouldn't want it either.

Gordon Cloud said...

I would like to see Dr. MacArthur publish his commentary on I John before it becomes necessary to publish his biography.

Vermigli said...

Phil, you wrote:

"John MacArthur was locked up by a gung-ho Mississippi sheriff for preaching the gospel"

With all due respect, I find that exceedingly hard to believe. MacArthur was arrested for preaching the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and faith in Him for justification from sins? Really?

That's the Gospel. He was arrested for *that* in Mississippi? I don't believe it.

I think you're using the word "gospel" to mean something alien to the Biblical and historic meaning. During the same period persons were arrested for doing the same exact thing that MacArthur was doing, yet they were from many different religious backgrounds -- including hardcore secularists that held the Gospel in contempt; the commonality of all these persons -- including MacArthur -- was not to be found in the Christian Gospel. MacArthur is a Christian, but he was not arrested in Mississippi for "preaching the Gospel."

It just seems like a warped version of what transpired, and not a sober, objective reporting of the facts.

Is the police report available? Were the charges "preaching the Gospel"?

Most of the Southerners -- particularly Mississippi -- in that period were devout Christians and would not arrest anyone for simply "preaching the Gospel". If that were the case, they'd be locking up people all over the landscape every Sunday, or are we to accept a version that paints Mississippi has having very few real Christians with all the true Gospel preachers coming in from New York and California to "make things right."

Please.

No, something else was afoot than simply "preaching the Gospel."

What were the official charges? Were they more along the lines of disturbing the peace, breach of the peace, inciting public disorder, or other similar charge(s)? That seems far more realistic than being arrested for "preaching the Gospel" in Mississippi.

Christians should be interested in the truth, not painting the facts to present a distorted image for the purposes of PR. Such a distortion of the facts is disturbing coming from a Christian.

FJ De Angelis

shadman said...

JOHN WILL BE THE BEST PREACHER OF OUR TIME. I have met him and love John and never had a sermon where he was off. John is the best there is and I have learned so much from the bible from Mac

ScottyB said...

nice post i've been waiting for some more info on this

Kim said...

Why aren't there conferences like Together for the Gospel which are designed for women? I noticed that the registration is not open to women, which I don't have a problem with. Unfortunately, whenever conferences for women are held, they often lack some of the meatier aspects of what is offered for men.

Forgive me if I sound like a raging feminist; it's monday and I didn't sleep well last night.

LeeC said...

Vermigli,

It reads s if perhaps you are taking ofense to this out of a sense of geographic/cultural pride. If Pastor MacArthurs views on the church and government were anything then like they are today I cannot believe that he was involved in rabble rousing protests as you seem to infer and is no whre else here implied.

I am certain that Peter was not locked up and beaten for preaching the Gospel in Acts either according to the record.

"Disturbing the peace" has been the accusation the world has given for locking up people who preach the truth since the first persecutions.

I find it a bit disengenuous to expect even someone who s intentionaly persecuting the chutch to say "I a arresting this person for teaching truth." no, they use euphemisms such as you have listed.

Vermigli said...

leec,

Thanks for your comments.

Regarding your odd comment and attempt at side-stepping what I stated by psychoanalyzing me and my "geographic/cultural pride," that is a form of ad hominem on your part. It isn't good reasoning.

It doesn't matter where I am from or whether I have pride or shame in it -- what matters is the content of the statement.

Regardless, no one was arrested in Mississippi for "preaching the Gospel" -- Mississippi was and is a state that has a sizeable Christian populace. If people got arrested for "preaching the Gospel" in Mississippi in the 1960s they'd be locking people up all over the landscape every Sunday.

As I stated, are we to believe that Mississippi only had a few Christian preachers of the Gospel in the 1960s and it took people from California and New York to "set things right" in regard to the Gospel and such "true Christians" were arrested for "preaching the Gospel" and no other reason?

That's complete nonsense and a lie.

Regarding St. Peter, yes, he was persecuted for preaching the Gospel -- he didn't go around preaching for better housing, or the freeing of Roman slaves, or better access to civil rights for non-Romans, etc.

He was persecuted for preaching the Gospel -- no other reason. The nature of Christ as King was against the civil law in the Roman empire, as Caesar was the only King.

The Romans understood the early Christian message, and it wasn't the truncated dispensationalist view -- they understood they were preaching Christ as King of the world, in the here and now. The Jews likewise instigated the persecution as they loathed the idea of Christ as Lord and King.

You essentially don't know what you are talking about and have offered psychoanalyzing and faulty analogies (John MacArthur "suffered" for the same reason and context as...St. Peter?!).

It stands -- neither MacArthur nor anyone else was arrested in Mississippi in the 1960s for simply "preaching the Gospel." Mississippi was at the time an overwhelmingly Christian state and the Gospel was honored and preached all the time -- without the need of outside assistance from Californians and New Yorkers.

It is a farce to make such a claim and it is obfuscation to allude that no matter what the actual charges were, it was "really" martyrdom for the Gospel.

This is what the cults say when their leaders get accused of various improprieties -- a species of "double-think" kicks in and anything can be excused and explained away. Orthodox Christians -- and serious thinkers in general -- should avoid such practices.

John MacArthur preaches the Gospel -- this is true; John MacArthur didn't get arrested for preaching the Gospel in Mississippi, he was arrested for some other reason.

Is the police report available? I'd like to review it. I hope the following isn't the best defense in regard to the police report:

"the true facts are not accessible, and the only available sources of information are biased" (see Milton Rokeach, The Open and Closed Mind, p. 37.)

Finally, I respect and appreciate John MacArthur and have a number of his/Phil's books in my library; I consider him/Phil a solid Christian teacher in the main. My entire point is that it pushes credulity to claim that "John MacArthur was locked up by a gung-ho Mississippi sheriff for preaching the gospel."

MacArthur was "locked up," but not for preaching the Gospel. I bet he did preach the Gospel while there, but that is not why he was arrested.

FJ De Angelis

Scott Hill said...

There are a lot of ignorant people in the south who don't like Dr. MacArthur. I grew up there and I can't believe I have never heard this until now. The only thing his critics there ever brought out to me was the whole "incarnational sonship" thing, and that is so last century. I hope they don't find out.

Scott Hill said...

Vermigli, speaking from one who has heard 1000's of stories by former Klan family members, that sheriff could have arrested Dr. Macarthur for anything he wanted. If the Doc was hanging out with a black man and the sheriff didn't like it then he would have.

I lived and served in Mississippi for 28 years. Everyone in Mississippi "claims" to be Christian and they always have, but that don't make it so.

Just so you'll know I love Mississippi so I am not speaking out of destation.

Phil Johnson said...

FJ De Angelis: "No, something else was afoot than simply 'preaching the Gospel.'"

Well, yeah. Technically, what rankled the sheriff was not merely that MacArthur was preaching the gospel, but that he was doing in in tandem with a black preacher. That, by the sheriff's definition, unlawfully disturbed the peace.

Now, if you're implying that MacArthur must've been part of some kind of protest, political demonstration, or otherwise deliberately doing some civil-rights rabble-rousing, you simply don't know MacArthur very well.

As much as your "kinist" friends might hate to admit it, there really were places in the 1950s and early '60s where the mere sight of a white guy working under the oversight of a black preacher would be enough to provoke certain law-enforcement authorities to wield their authority unlawfully.

Vermigli said...

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your comments.

So you're saying that MacArthur could have been arrested for simply any reason or no reason whatsoever. Mississippi was essentially a lawless place, where there was nothing but corruption and it took the good and morally superior people from California and New York to set things right.

Let's use your example. Standing and talking with someone that is Black isn't "see also arrested for preaching the Gospel."

Moreover, it wasn't against the law for a white man to stop and chat with a black man in Mississippi in the 1960s -- or 1850s. Merely chatting, or even a white man telling a black man the Christian Gospel, was not a crime -- actual or trumped up -- in Mississippi.

Scott, a brief summary of your comments reveals the following:

(a) John MacArthur may have been arrested for any reason or no reason; even talking with a Black man, asking him for directions or asking the time of day, could have resulted in an arrest;

(b) Mississippi was a lawless place of total corruption, where the "Klan" ruled and sheriffs had no honor or sense of right and wrong;

(c) while the people of Mississippi "claimed" to be Christian, this is not so. The Californians and New Yorkers had to come in and actually preach the Gospel, and preaching the Gospel was against the law in Mississippi and could result in arrest and did so for John MacArthur.

This is exactly the thesis I claimed is being offered, and it is complete nonsense. Preaching the Gospel was not something people got arrested for in Mississippi in the 1960s -- unsubstantiated claims about "stories about the Klan" notwithstanding. You are defaming the entire populace of the state of Mississippi and it is outrageous.

MacArthur probably preached the Gospel while in Mississippi, but that is not what he was arrested for by any means -- even you admitted it could have been for some other reason (i.e., simply speaking in public with a black man...which is also nonsense).

Was he present during a situation where civil unrest was taking place? Was there an unruly mob forming? Was he in the presence of others that were encouraging civil unrest and breach of the peace?

Is the police report available? I'd like to review it.

FJ De Angelis

Vermigli said...

Hi Phil,

I claimed that something else was afoot than simply 'preaching the Gospel.', and you respond with the following:

"Well, yeah. Technically, what rankled the sheriff was not merely that MacArthur was preaching the gospel"

Phil, you are admitting it wasn't for simply preaching the Gospel, exactly as I stated.

Phil, ever been to law school? I have.

You are changing your testimony mid-stream "under examination." (I realize you are not being examined and that you are not on trial...).

In such a scenario the prosecutor would come after you with a vengeance, and if the judge was in a mood he may consider perjury.

"MacArthur was arrested for preaching the Gospel" and "Well, yeah. Technically, what rankled the sheriff was not merely that MacArthur was preaching the gospel" are not the same thing. Not even close.

As I stated, MacArthur was not arrested for preaching the Gospel in Mississippi, and you have publicly and unequivocally admitted it.

Now, did MacArthur "unlawfully disturbed the peace" under the laws of Mississippi at the time or the county he was in and was such a thing upheld in a court of law?

If so, it was not MacArthur's place to do such a thing. As admitted, simply preaching the Gospel was (a) not unlawful in Mississippi in the 1960s (or any time) and; (b) MacArthur was not arrested for preaching the Gospel.

I am glad that the truth came to light that MacArthur was not arrested for preaching the Gospel in Mississippi. He was arrested for disturbing the peace, which charge you contest (which is fine); you claim he was religiously persecuted for preaching the Gospel.

Phil, is the police report available? If so, I'd appreciate actually reviewing the facts of the case.

FJ De Angelis

Phil Johnson said...

FJ De Angelis: "I am glad that the truth came to light that MacArthur was not arrested for preaching the Gospel in Mississippi. He was arrested for disturbing the peace, which charge you contest (which is fine); you claim he was religiously persecuted for preaching the Gospel."

Well, just in case there are other former law-school students, kinists, or snuff-spittle-drooling white supremacists out there who might have been as confused as Mr. De Angelis was by my original meaning, I hope that actually clarifies something important.

James Spurgeon said...

Phil, you owe me a cup of coffee.

Vermigli said...

Phil wrote:

"Well, just in case there are other former law-school students, kinists, or snuff-spittle-drooling white supremacists out there who might have been as confused as Mr. De Angelis was by my original meaning, I hope that actually clarifies something important."

Why the need to use ad hominem, Phil? It simply displays a lack of substance on the part of the person using it.

And where was I confused about anything, Phil? I have consistently maintained that what you stated about MacArthur's arrest was completely untrue; you are the one that has changed your tune, not me. If anyone is inconsistent and "confused" it would be you if honesty has any influence in the discourse.

And the "something important" that you mock is the truth. Don't you think the truth is important, Phil? You stated MacArthur was arrested for "preaching the gospel" -- that was a lie. You admitted it, "technically."

He was arrested for disturbing the peace. It was never against the law to preach the Gospel in Christian Mississippi.

Your entire fabrication was combination damage control and bearing of false witness against the people of Mississippi. The implication was that the Gospel was something "criminal" to the corrupt people of Mississippi, who only claimed to be "christian" but we know better.

It took the enlightened, "true Christians" of California and New York to bring the truth of the Gospel to Mississippi, and those courageous saints became martyrs and endured religious persecution and arrest for no other reason than "preaching the gospel."

But that was a lie. No one arrested MacArthur for "preaching the gospel," including preaching the gospel to black people; he was arrested for disturbing the peace.

You may claim that was an unjust arrest, and that may even be the case. However, to claim that MacArthur was arrested for "preaching the gospel" in Mississippi is a lie. You admitted it.

And please stop alluding publicly that I am a "white supremacist" (snuff-spittle-drooling or other version), as that is another lie.

I'm more than willing to discuss facts with you, but the use of ad hominem and outright character assassination is unseemly for a Christian, Phil. You should consider dropping it.

FJ De Angelis.

PS - is the police report available?

Phil Johnson said...

FJ: You'll have to check in Mississippi to see if the sheriff's report is still available. I presume it is, but not only have I never been a law student, I am not now and have never been a county records clerk.

You are confused, BTW. You're acting as if I was trying to make a point about what actual charges might be listed on an arrest warrant somewhere. What I originally described was what MacArthur was actually doing when he was hauled into the county jail.

I do think most readers understood my verbal shorthand perfectly well despite the technical imprecision, even before you got agitated about it.

farmboy said...

Focusing on the legal form to the exclusion of the underlying substance can be a consequence of legal training. (At least this has been my experience in the area of taxation.) Be that as it may, Mr. De Angelis continuing to belabor his arcane, technical point aroused my curiousity. A Google search of Mr. De Angelis revealed his association with the following website:

www.semper-reformanda.org/journal/

My search also revealed that articles written by Mr. De Angelis were referenced favorably by

www.littlegeneva.com

As follows:

www.littlegeneva.com/?p=108

www.littlegeneva.com/?feed=rss2&p=389

My search also revealed that Mr. De Angelis was a contributor to the following website:

www.patriotist.com/

The first thing that one views when going to this website is a rendition of Mort Kunstler's Confederate Christmas.

This is at least interesting and potentially provides a basis for understanding Mr. De Angelis' comments regarding Mr. Johnson's post.

Vermigli said...

farmboy,

Pointing out that MacArthur was not arrested for preaching the Gospel is not an "arcane, technical" point. It is called the truth.

Regarding your "investigation" in order to "understand" me (psychoanalysis nonsense....)

www.semper-reformanda.org/journal/

It's a popular website. I get many favorable e-mails. Sorry if you find Reformed orthodoxy "controversial" or bad. I hope someday you come around.

www.littlegeneva.com

Harry Seabrook does occassionally comment favorably on my writings. He has good taste. And while I disagree with him on some points of theology, are you saying that Mr. Seabrook is a bad man?

And is your "reasoning" along the lines of "guilt by reference" because it can't even be the informal fallacy of guilt by association in this instance. Pathetic.

Well, at least be consistent with it. John MacArthur was arrested for disturbing the peace while working with John Perkins. John Perkins has a background in left-wing labor movements and social gospel agitation, in the case of the latter very much along the lines of the communist Michael King (media name, "Martin Luther King, Jr."), as well as other activities patterned after the communist Nelson Mandela.

Ergo, John MacArthur is a communist according to your illogic. Or are you going to not be consistent and simply be abusive and pick and choose your ad hominem and character assassination as it suits your purposes? That's really immoral of you. Do you work hard at such immorality or does it come naturally to you?

www.patriotist.com/

Yes, I contributed a piece to that site. Is something wrong? Specifically?

Mort Kunstler's Confederate Christmas is a true work of art. What is it that you disapprove of specifically? And you will judge the Patriotist website as Forboden because it has a Christmas painting? Oh, it must be that the Christmas painting is one that has Confederate Christians instead of Unitarian Yankees in the picture.

The Confederacy was evil, right? Who do you think was the most evil in the Confederacy, was it Robert E. Lee or Thomas Jackson? I know they can't stand up to such chivalrous men and godly saints as Ulysses S. Grant and William Tecumseh Sherman. If you believe that, you simply express your ignorance, nothing more.

Is that your point "farmboy"?

I noticed you didn't address anything of substance that I raised and I conclude reasonably because you can't. Ad hominem, red herrings, guilt by association, bigotry and old fashioned stupidity are all that you have displayed.

The point stands -- it was claimed that John MacArthur was arrested in Mississippi for "preaching the Gospel." This has been conclusively established to be a statement contrary to fact. It is not a minor issue. All the ad hominem, hack psychoanalysis of me and other sundry red herrings tossed out do not change this fact.

FJ De Angelis

Moo Zuba said...

Vermigli,

I have to wonder about one thing....

Where are you from?

I wasn't even alive when the civil rights movement was really happening, but having lived in Alabama, Georgia, Texas and Louisiana at various points in my life I find it laughable that you would doubt a Mississippi sherrif would arrest a man for preaching in affiliation with a black church. Mississippi (especially southern Mississippi) is notorious for its racism--even today.* If you want to nit-pick the details of the arrest, you're right--it was probably more due to racial issues than doctrinal issues. But his arrest was still due to his preaching the gospel message. MacArthur, by his actions in working with this black minister, was making a non-verbal declaration that all believers are one in Christ. It was not merely his friendship with this black pastor that resulted in his arrest, but his evangelistic efforts in conjunction with that man.

Paul was arrested for his association with a Gentile. They accused him of bringing him into the temple--that is, of allowing him to mingle with the Jews in an unlawful way. And yet no student of scripture would say that Paul was arrested merely for "disturbing the peace." In fact, Paul himself declared on numerous occassions that he had been arrested and put on trial for the sake of Christ. That is, for the sake of the gospel. I fail to see how John MacArthur's situation is any different. Nor do I see why there should be any debate over the nature of his arrest.

In Christ alone,
moozuba

* - Real-life, personal examples available upon request.

Vermigli said...

moozuba:

You wrote, "I find it laughable that you would doubt a Mississippi sherrif would arrest a man for preaching in affiliation with a black church."

I respond: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:16). I call upon you to repent of it.

I never stated, implied or alluded that anyone was or was not arrested for being "in affiliation with a black church."

Lying and bearing of false witness seem to be a mainstay around here. It is sad and disappointing to watch you and some others do it with such casual ease.

I clearly stated that no one was arrested in Mississippi for "preaching the Gospel." That is precisely what I stated and it stands.

Phil Johnson conceded as much, and admitted that MacArthur was arrested for disturbing the peace. No minister of the Gospel was ever arrested for preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ in Mississippi.

Ministers arrested in Mississippi? Definitely. For the reason of preaching the Gospel. Never.

If -- without adding words after the fact in dishonest fashion and thereby suffering the death of a thousand qualifications -- preaching the Gospel was something people got arrested for in Mississippi in the 1960s then they would have been locking people up all over the landscape every Sunday.

No, it was not simply for "preaching the Gospel" that MacArthur was arrested.

And regarding you finding it laughable that someone would doubt a Mississippi sherrif arresting a man for preaching in affiliation with a black church, go and find the person that asserted such a thing. In any case, you should first stop bearing false witness as it is a serious issue.

FJ De Angelis

farmboy said...

Mr. De Angelis,

In your reply you note regarding my original comment: "Ad hominem, red herrings, guilt by association, bigotry and old fashioned stupidity are all that you have displayed."

Like my dad often said when I was growing up, "You can call me anything but 'late for supper.'" Fortunately, "late for supper" was missing from your list of descriptive traits, because those would have been fightin' words.

Now, I've got to log off, go home and watch John Wayne starring in "The Undefeated."

Moo Zuba said...

Vermigli,

If that was not your intent in what you've written, then I do apologize. I had no intention of misrepresenting you or your arguments. But I feel that in your fervor to correct my misconceptions you likewise miss the point of my argument.

My argument is that John MacArthur was arrested "for preaching the gospel" in the same sense that the apostle Paul was arrested and tried "for preaching the gospel" in the Trophimus affair (cf. Acts 21). The apostle defended himself before kings and governors as having been placed in chains for the sake of the gospel. According to his accusers, the issue was Paul's association with Gentiles, but according to God the issue was the gospel of Jesus Christ. They were looking for a reason to arrest Paul because they despised his doctrine and the Christ he proclaimed. And they found their reason in some trumped-up charges regarding social and religious taboos which Paul was alleged to have violated. Suffering "for the gospel" is therefore not reserved to those times when religious persecution restricts freedom of speech. It's not limited to times when "preaching the gospel" is listed as the arrestable offense. You seem to argue from a legal standpoint, as if MacArthur's case file and the arresting police officer's notes were the defining aspect of the case. This is the viewpoint of the Jews who brought Paul up on charges of defiling the temple. But the perspective of God is that whenever His people suffer injustice in conjunction with His name and the preaching of His word, they are suffering "for the gospel."

Sincerely and again with apologies for my previous misunderstanding,
In Christ alone,
moozuba

4given said...

Wow! No wonder you made this a team blog. Some of these people sound like... "blinded dupes in the fogs and bogs of uncertainty." Prating about nothingness just to be controversial critics... did you ever imagine such responses?

Scott Hill said...

Vermigli, in my little comment I was presupposing that the sheriff was a member of the klan.

And if you don't think you could be arrested for nothing back in that day then you don't know the South very well.

Scott Hill said...

Phil, they just want cut you any slack will they. You try and post an entertaining little piece of information most of us weren't privy to and somebody has to come and knit pic some arcane point about what Dr. MacArthur was actually arrested for. No wonder you turned Pyro into a group blog.

Phil Johnson said...

FJ De Angelis: "Lying and bearing of false witness seem to be a mainstay around here. It is sad and disappointing to watch you and some others do it with such casual ease."

That's an ironic statement, considering the bandwidth you have clogged today with innuendo and loaded words like "admitted," "conceded," etc., implying someone told a lie, and you've come here as the great champion of truth, defending an important point of fact.

Paul and silas were actually charged by anti-semites with disturbing the peace (Acts 16:19-20), and they were put in stocks and beaten. But in a true sense, they were beaten for the gospel's sake, and because of their preaching. If you tried to argue that they weren't really beaten for the gospel's sake because an incident report exists somewhere in a Roman archive claiming they were disturbing the peace, you'd be dead wrong.

You're wrong about this incident, too. Any sheriff who would harass a preacher or take him into custody for publicly associating with black people hates the truth of the gospel. No one ever suggested that the act was officially sanctioned by the state of Mississippi. Unfortunately, that doesn't alter the fact that it did happen.

You're not defending any great principle of truth, FJ. You're acting as a shill for your "kinist" (or, in non-technical laymen's terms, "racist") friends.

I don't have a lot of patience with that kind of thing, as you well know. I don't delete many comments from my blog, but I do routinely delete 1) profanity, and 2) comments from white supremacists and their fellow-travelers. So if you want to continue this dispute about words to no profit, please take it to Harry Seabrook's blog, where it belongs.