I, however, was surprised to read the Bayly bros. explain in a blog post how this MSBNIV is all about money, and shoring up the funds for the fading MacArthur empire, and what not.
In this post, David Bayly writes,
But, like it or not, John is getting older. His ministry has handlers now. There are legacy issues to consider. The financial future of a MacArthur-less GTY, Master’s College and Seminary, etc. is being weighed. And are we really to believe that finances play no role in such decisions at GTY? Really?
Wow. That’s the kind of Gail Riplinger conspiratorial stuff I read over at the KJV-Only websites, just minus the seizure inducing flash animation of anamorphic Bibles.
Phil’s reply was precious, and hence the reason we all love him around here:
David: “His ministry has handlers now. There are legacy issues to consider. The financial future of a MacArthur-less GTY, Master’s College and Seminary, etc. is being weighed. And are we really to believe that finances play no role in such decisions at GTY? Really?”
Well, yes. Really.
You’re trying too hard to justify a groundless judgment you have made.
I’m Executive Director of Grace to You. We’re a donor-supported ministry, and we get zero royalties on sales of the MSB. We’ve given away freely, no strings attached whatsoever, at least 80,000 copies (NASB, NKJV, and ESV combined). John waives his author’s royalty on all copies given away by the ministry. (He does that for all books given away by GTY, and we have literally given away millions of books). We DO sell additional copies of his books at a sizable discount, but our total sales numbers are a small fraction of what we have given away for free. Moreover, our income from book sales, when you subtract the cost of purchasing books from the publisher, is negligible.
Which is to say there is a sum total of zero financial incentive for GTY to want to see an NIV edition of the MSB published.
When the NIV-MSB was first proposed, John MacArthur said no. **I’m** the one who lobbied for it to be done–for all the reasons I listed in my blogpost about it. You may question my judgment or disagree with the decision. But given the fact that not one dime in royalties or reward will go to me personally or to the ministry I work for, you cannot righteously claim my motive was money.
But: “Handlers”? In everything you have written about this issue, that’s what amuses me most of all. Next time you’re in California, I’ll take you to lunch and let you meet our management team. We’ve been called a lot of things. “Handlers” is a first, and while it’s a lot nicer than we’re accustomed to, I have to say: You give us way too much credit if you think we’re savvy, profit-motivated “handlers.”
We’re basically a bunch of teachers and preachers and Sunday-school teachers–churchmen without MBAs and totally lacking in either experience or interest when it comes to marketing technique. We are stewards accountable to God for what we do with our ministry and with our gifts. And that’s intimidating enough without posing as “handlers” of John MacArthur’s “legacy issues.”
One other thing to bear in mind: The Pyromaniacs blog is my hobby, not an extension of my job. The guys who write there, except for me, have no connection to John MacArthur or Grace Community Church. Your original accusations about this were as off-base as these revised comments.
I like you guys and I love that you are passionate about what you believe. But defending your ability to publish judgments of others’ hearts and motives doesn’t become you–especially when it’s clear you made no real effort to investigate the facts.