Home » Kent Brandenburg » John MacArthur: “Men Dressed Like Women”

John MacArthur: “Men Dressed Like Women”

Not many days ago, well-known evangelical pastor, John MacArthur, went public, perhaps worldwide, by calling on pastors today to stand with Canadian evangelical pastors by preaching for biblical sexual morality.  I noticed that he himself preached “Such Were Some of You but You Have Been Washed” from 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 on January 16, 2022, Sunday morning.  I’m sure that they will make that available soon on the Grace To You website.  In late December, Phil Johnson did an interview with John MacArthur and asked him what he thought about various issues in the news, including Covid, Totalitarianism, and the Antichrist.

MacArthur also said this in the interview:

Totalitarianism that is going to come will basically be imposed on us by Godless, Christ-hating, Bible hating, anti-Christian forces.  They may not be overt about that, but if you want to make sure that we are free to murder babies, and you want homosexuality to be acceptable, and you want to appoint people into high positions, who are men dressed like women, and if you want to protect transgenders and all of that, then you have a Godless agenda, you have a God-hating agenda. . . . They’re not even trying to be hypocrites.  They are not trying to cover up.  I mean, how insane are you when you introduce someone called Rachel Levine and turn that guy into a four star general, who’s acting like a woman, who’s actually a man?  . . . How perverse is this culture, it’s so far gone.

And he said more.  I agree with what he said, however, I want to talk about the root cause of such a result that MacArthur describes.

What was the start of the gender identity crisis, gender fluidity, and then transgenderism, what MacArthur describes as “men dressed like women” and “a guy who’s acting like a woman”?  MacArthur assumes that we understand what it means to dress like a woman.  Do we understand?  Where does scripture show this?  What is the verse that tells us how women dress?

For decades, almost his entire time as a pastor, John MacArthur often referred to 1 Corinthians 4:6, “not to think of men above that which is written.”  In a recent question and answer, he said:

I have no authority. I don’t have authority beyond the Scripture. I can never exceed what is written, 1 Corinthians 4:6. To do that is to become, Paul says, arrogant, and to regard yourself as superior. I have nothing to say to you that puts any demand on you if it isn’t from the Word of God.

MacArthur’s interviewer, Phil Johnson, wrote the following:

Let me say this plainly: It is a sin to impose on others any “spiritual” standard that has no biblical basis. When God gave the law to Israel, He told them, “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you” (Deuteronomy 4:2). And, “Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it” (Deuteronomy 12:32).

The same principle is repeated in the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 4, Paul was rebuking the Corinthians for their sectarianism, saying “I am of Paul”; “I am of Apollos,” and so on. His rebuke to them includes these words in 1 Corinthians 4:6: “I have applied all these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written.”

That is a good guideline for how we should exercise our Christian liberty: Don’t go beyond what is written in Scripture.

Does the Word of God say what effeminate behavior is?  Does it tell us what is transgender?  In his interview with Johnson, MacArthur says that men dressed like women.  This is where the downfall of the nation is.  This is why totalitarians will rise up to control Christians — in order to protect the practice of men dressing like women.

Do women dress like men?  Men dress like women, when they do what?  Wear dresses.  That is female dress.  What do men wear?  They wear pants.

MacArthur wants a stand for gender distinctions.  That ship sailed a long time ago, when he capitulated on women’s dress.  He’s just now saying anything about it.  Why?  Because men are now wearing dresses.

I guess it’s a strong stand against men in dresses.  I guess.  Does that seem strong to you?  Most men are still against that.  What is a strong stand in actuality is against women dressing like men.  You won’t hear that ever from John MacArthur,  because that very selectively, as the NASV says in 1 Corinthians 4:6, “exceeds what is written.”  Since scripture doesn’t say what female dress is, then women can dress however they want.

Does it say what male dress is?

Evangelicals like MacArthur are way too late on the issue of gender distinction.  They gave up on it long ago.  Transgenderism directly relates to their capitulation and compromise with the world a long time ago.  Judgment begins with the house of God.


21 Comments

  1. “I guess it’s a strong stand against men in dresses. I guess. Does that seem strong to you?” No, in this we are hoeing the easy row. Almost no men I know, even very effeminate ones, wear dresses.

    I think this is somewhat like the battle the churches lost in the 1960s and 1970s about long hair on men. They had (at least most of them) long since given up the fight against short hair on women, so they had effectively removed the very ground they stood on to fight long hair on men.

  2. Pastor Brandenburg, I very much appreciated your article here:

    https://kentbrandenburg.com/2014/09/24/1-corinthians-112-16-headcoverings-and/

    I believe you’re correct on your view of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, I believe it’s what Paul is teaching, I believe (as you point out) it’s historical, and this article has inspired me to deep dig into this issue as well. To date I have read six commentaries (working on number seven) on these verses and I believe they confirm what is being said here by Paul. Women in Christian churches cannot forsake what Nature demands, they must always recognize and submit to the nature of their design and the God of nature. Their hair is given them as a natural ornament of beauty and a sign of submission to men. So to should their dress be distinct and different than the man. It should agree with their nature and symbolize their submission to the man and there is no religious exception or special circumstance that takes away from this. So much as it’s a shame for men to have long hair, it is a blessing and an honor for women to adorn themselves with it. In like manner, so much as it is a shame for men to wear a dress, it’s a blessing and an honor for women to do it. And the same can be said about pants. For I cannot think of any clothing item in our culture today, recognized by both lost and saved people that clearly and uniquely symbolizes the sexes. The world gets it. The world has corrupted the uniqueness of pants over the last 100 years and now feels bold enough to normalize men in dresses. To a degree the world has succeeded in the war on female dress. Weak Christian men have allowed it to happen. Now the world will steamroll the men in dresses issue because, as you have pointed out, a majority of Christians have already surrendered on the issue of Biblical dress. I am looking forward to your book on dress!

    • Thanks Benjamin!

      I agree totally with you. It must be dealt with biblically. Although MacArthur is known for going to scripture to make points, he doesn’t do that here. He just riffs in an emotional way and connects it to the Antichrist. Why though? There is an authority issue with dress. The man wearing a skirt or dress is abdication of his position or role. People learn through the symbols, as 1 Corinthians 11 says. It means something in the Bible. I have noticed that Grace Community Church puts a worship team with female worship leaders on the platform doing Charismatic style, sentimental, fleshly music too, blending their worship. Why not go after that pragmatism too? But no. To MacArthur it’s the gag factor of the Biden administration having a General dressing like a woman. What is wrong with that though? How do you dress like a man? No instruction, just an emotional reaction, assuming that others will join him. Will he address butch haircuts on women? No. You don’t want to get in trouble, like Adam didn’t want to get in trouble with Eve.

      • Yes, I agree.  I think a Christian should ask themselves “does God tell me how to dress?”  And I realize that is what you’re saying. The answer is of course yes.  And it can be found in the New Testament.  To your point, John MacArthur can’t stand against transgenderism, even though he wants too, because he must know that any scriptural arguement against men dressing like women, when consistently applied, will condemn women dressing like men.  Something many Christian women have been doing for decades and in his church!

        And for a man like him who has been operating a certian way for many years, reversing on a subject like Biblical dress for the purpose of only standing against transgenderism – seems like it could be a bridge to far.  Coming out fully in support of the scripture’s position on dress would have many second and third order effects for John MacAarthur and his church.  It would mean repenting on woman in pants and many other pragmatic decisions he has made there, as you point out.  I pray he can do it.  Christianity is about putting off the old man and yielding to the Spirit of God.  Transgenderism is wrong for both men and women.  I think John Macarthur knows it, I pray he has the courage to yield to God’s word and Holy Spirit.

        • Benjamin,

          MacArthur has been very careful not to stand strong where it would affect the numbers of the church. He applies scripture in a selective way and churches and then the world have slid because people like him have not stood. When you say something to them, it’s distracted by saying, “He’s KJVO or he’s a flaming fundamentalist or he’s going beyond what is written.” They attempt to discredit with that and not answer the actual question. Again, you have to apply the passages on gender distinction, and then even define what it is to be effeminate. It has been done through church history. He picks up certain historic doctrines and then flops on the areas of application believed and practiced by the same men he valued through history. He’s silent on those. And now that it is affecting things in a bigger way, he’s saying something, but he can’t and won’t go to scripture to do it. The biggest threat have been women and then men who won’t stand up to them.

          I think I wrote this in an earlier comment, but if you look at some of their Sunday evening services, they have the “worship team” with women up there leading too, singing the contemporary, sensual, fleshly songs as part of the “worship.” It is “blended worship.” This is pragmatic. I can’t imagine that they would do that if he didn’t put his stamp on it. I can’t imagine he likes it, but again he won’t stand up to those influences.

          People may wonder, why does Brandenburg go after MacArthur. I think he’s the most influential conservative preacher in the United States. I’m not saying he’s the most influential preacher, because there are some in the Southern Baptist Convention and in evangelicalism at large who might still have more sway. I’d be interested in who readers think that is. It was Billy Graham before his death. Is it Tim Keller? Is it Rick Warren?

          • I unfortunately can’t answer your closing question, because truthfully I don’t know! I also understand you’re making a general question to all who come and read here. I grew up in Methodist Churches, not thinking much of Christianity, but once I was born again by the grace of God, the Lord drew me to search out men who preached the whole counsel of God, and who take the Bible seriously. I was saved listening to a sermon by a man named Reg Kelly from Liberty Faith Church in Norwood, MO. I was saved out of dead Protestantism by listening to a strong sermon over the internet on sin, death, hell, repentance, and the need to be born again by faith. Once I was saved, God by his providence and grace brought me into Independent Baptist Churches. I attend West Coast Baptist Church in Oceanside, CA – You and I meet briefly there once back in 2021 when you came to preach. Pastor Philip Clark is the Pastor. I say this to say, because of my circumstances I never really listened too or went after any of the big Evangelical names. Believe it or not, I had never heard of John MacArthur until I read your article here! And it’s kind of funny to me because, his Church is not to far from where I am at, up in LA.

  3. I have checked out this guy’s website a few times. I have yet to hear any sermons that preach against cards, against going to the Hollywood theatre, or against dancing. My pastor has preached for years that if we can just keep the members of our church out of the theatre, out of the dance halls, and out of card games, we will be the most spiritual church in our city. And I think we are.

    I don’t know what this Mcarthur guy is all about, but I’ve seen his name around a lot. For all of his recognition, I haven’t seen one sermon from that place that was on anything relevant or meaningful to the Christian life like our church. Does anyone even know what this place teaches?

    • Mr. Masterson,

      Thanks for coming by. I agree with you that they do not apply scripture. I didn’t use that term, application, but that’s how you take the Bible and don’t go beyond what is written in these matters. God expects us to apply passages like 1 Cor 11, 1 Tim 2, 1 Cor 14, Deut 22, Isaiah 47, etc. I think there is more than the movie theater, the dancing, and the cards, but I think they should be dealt with too in scriptural fashion. The one issue he hits is gambling, that I know of. Besides that, he avoids this altogether, which makes their people quite happy and their ears suitably itched.

  4. I think we need to remember that the most important dress code is one we can all agree on: everyone must wear a mask at all times, whether at school, the grocery story, at home, or at church. We can all agree that the mask knows no gender distinctions and that no one call themselves a Christian and NOT wear a mask to church, whether they are a man or a woman. So even if we disagree with this Mcarthur guy, I think we can at least be united with him and agree that all people need to wear a mask. I’ve heard of some churches that let people come in without masks. Places like that are so liberal and rebellious that I don’t even think we can legitimately call a place such as that a “church”.

    • Why should masks be worn again? Wear a mask at home? I guess y’all can do that. I certainly do not and will not. For church service I can say ok, to each his choice.

      • I do not frequent this site on a regular basis, so I do not understand the context of some of the comments here. It sounds as if you have a history of rebelling against facial and/or head coverings. Why would you say that wearing a mask is “to each his choice”? That is not right at all. It should not be viewed as a “choice” by any means. All Christians should wear face coverings at all times: at home, in the car, at work, at church, at the store. To not wear a face mask at all times is selfish and shows that one has a “I’m so important that I think I have the right to not cover my face” rebellious attitude. Is this really the kind of attitude we should teach to our children?

        • Hi Mary,

          Thanks for dropping by. I don’t believe 1 Corinthians 11 teaches head coverings for today. The head covering was a symbol of male headship and female subjection. It teaches gender distinction and having those symbols, which I believe today is skirts/dresses for women and pants on men. That’s not being rebellious.

          The face mask is a different issue. The Bible doesn’t say anything against that and someone could reasonably say that face masks are a kind of instrument of government control. Look at early in the pandemic when Fauci said the mask wouldn’t help, and then later said he was lying to protect frontline medical workers. I wear the mask when it is required and I don’t when it is not. It doesn’t bother me to wear it. However, it does bother some people. They see it as a liberty. They don’t breathe well with it on. I’m not going to go through every point, because it’s been discussed a whole lot everywhere. It isn’t close to the same issue as headcoverings.

          Thanks again.

  5. Hi y’all
    I don’t see pants or dresses addressed in 1 Cor. 11.
    Can you point out the verses that do?
    I see physical headcoverings for the woman . That also seems to be historical teaching for the passage.

    • Hi John,

      This is a replay of many conversations, including in the article to which Ben linked. I thought I answered everything I could with you. I haven’t avoided the conversation. Why would we have it again? Please interact with other issues besides headcoverings for women.

  6. Ah now I get it. Pastors like John will not touch on women dressing and acting like men but now men dressing like women or wearing a dress is a problem. They will not touch on women wearing pants because pants is not in the bible and many other nonsense but now, men wear dress. If you never touched on women wearing pants, why speak on men wearing dress? Pants are not for men so dresses are not for women.
    Anyhow I stand on the fact that men and women ought to be differentiated according to the bible. Women wear dress and men wear pants. Decently too. Women look and act like a woman and men look and act like a man

  7. Are people actually serious about wearing a mask at all times? At first I thought it was a joke, but after reading the comments I’m not so sure.

  8. Luke, I think YOUR comment might be a joke. Yes, all real Christians wear masks at all times whether they are at work, at a restaurant, at church, playing sports, watching sports, at home, etc. To not do so is to be rebellious, not to mention being anti-mask puts you in the weird conspiracy theorist bracket, which I don’t think you really want.

  9. Charlotte, so you’re basically saying the mask is for optics. It’s not about the science or medical research on the ability of masks to stop a virus from spreading. How did “real” Christians identify themselves prior to March 2020? I don’t think your statement about real Christians wearing masks at all times holds up against Scripture or actual scientific data. If I am wrong please enlighten me.

  10. That’s a silly, pointless question, Luke. Real Christians did not need to identify themselves prior to March 2020, so it’s a moot point. These days Christians wear masks to show they are not rebellious and that they obey Fauci, the CDC, their governor, their mayor, etc. It does not matter whether the masks actually stop a virus from spreading or not. That is not the point at all. The point is that we are to obey.

    You identify as a white supremacist by not wearing a mask, as well as showing that you are not a Christian. It’s mainly racist people who do not wear masks.

  11. Well, Ulio, it’s a good thing that Fauci, the CDC, my governor, nor my mayor have mandated wearing a mask at church or at home or in my local grocery store. They may recommend it, but it is not enforceable by law. Furthermore, your case does not stand for someone living in Peru or Zimbabwe or some other foreign country. Are they supposed to cow-tow to Fauci? I’m not sure what to say to your claims about being a Christian because they are Scripturally unfounded. Not wearing a mask means I am not a Christian? No, my salvation does not rest in my adherence to someone else’s political ideology.
    This article is about something that is a scriptural discussion. You have derailed it to espouse political talking points. You can keep commenting if you want, but I don’t think we are going to get anywhere. It is impossible to reason when someone is unreasonable.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives