John MacArthur’s The Power of Integrity provides an exploration of integrity and what it looks like for the people of God to embody it. The first three chapters of the book deal with the definition and foundations of integrity. MacArthur argues that integrity of character is dependent upon union with Christ and integrity of doctrine, and that our “resources in this process are always God’s Word and prayer. Through them you gain the mind of Christ (Col. 3:16).” (p21)

The second part of the book (chapters 4-6) look to various examples of integrity demonstrated in the Bible and in the lives of Christians. MacArthur explores the actions of Daniel and his friends while captive in Babylon, missionary Hudson Taylor, preacher Charles Spurgeon, and the Apostle Paul. All of these provide a clearer picture of how God’s people can practically live out the integrity they are called to.

In the final chapters, MacArthur lays out the practice of integrity in the life of the believer. Instead of being passive or pietistic, we are to work with “fear and trembling” while utterly depending on God’s work in our lives. We are to seek personal holiness through the various relationships in our lives and that leads to practical holiness that’s displayed in love toward our Christian brethren as well as our enemies. At the end of the book is a helpful study guide for personal or group study and application.

In general, there’s nothing new or original about this book. And there shouldn’t be. The call to live a life of holiness as Christ is holy is ancient and yet we still fail at it. MacArthur merely takes these teachings and focuses our attention on them in a manner that is biblical and effectively practical. Among the many reasons for us to pursue integrity, one is that we live before a watching world. John MacArthur challenges us to look different from the world by living lives devoted to God without compromise. As the church continues to blend in with the watching world, books such as The Power of Integrity are necessary reminders of our responsibility to be work out our sanctification in this life.

However, I believe there are serious problems with some of the claims and solutions presented in the paper, and that some of these are more dangerous than the main concern Dr. Moreland is addressing. An "over-commitment" to the Bible may be wrong, but it is far better than under-commitment, and I believe under-commitment is far more prevalent. Consider the recent studies (such as Christian Smith's) that demonstrate the strength of relativism (or “moral therapeutic deism”) among Christian youth today. Such beliefs do not result from an over-commitment to the Bible. It may be possible to sin as a result of over-commitment, but I would argue that most sins are committed as a result (in part) of under-commitment to the authority and teaching of the Bible.

The proper corrective is not to criticize the few who may be over-committed, but hold accountable the many who are under-committed. This command was given to the disciples by Jesus: “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:20) Paul told Timothy that “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17). The leaders of the church are not responsible for teaching people extra-biblical knowledge as Dr. Moreland suggests, they are responsible for teaching the Bible and holding their sheep accountable to it- not to natural theology or “words of knowledge.” If Christians are to be holy as Christ is holy (1 Peter 1:15-16), if Christians are live as one so that the world will know that the Father sent the Son (John 17:20-21), then they will do so because of a strong commitment to the Bible, not because of extra-biblical knowledge they may pick up along the way. The vast majority of Christians desperately need to be more committed to the Bible, not less.

In arguing that the “best explanation” for over-commitment “is historical and sociological,” Dr. Moreland commits a genetic fallacy. While Dr. Moreland’s claim may be true of some people, the majority of those he is criticizing have arguments for what they believe. Instead of engaging in people’s arguments against natural theology, extra-biblical knowledge of spirits, and his Third Wave version of divine guidance, Dr. Moreland criticizes their possible intellectual heritage and dismisses their arguments. He does this in his section on “Why are Contemporary American Evangelicals Over-committed to the Bible?” and when he cites Richard B. Gaffin on page 8.

Dr. Moreland’s failure to address the biblical arguments of those who disagree with him, to provide biblical support for any of the claims he made in his paper and his over-emphasis on extra-biblical knowledge leave me doubtful about his commitment to the Bible as the ultimate authority and “source of relevant knowledge.” Certainly the Bible is relevant in these issues, so I can only hope that he demonstrates the commitment he claims to have in his book since it is absent from his paper.

[Editorial note: My language about being "doubtful about his commitment to the Bible" was too strong and I apologize for any confusion that caused. I am concerned, but I am not to the point of doubting his commitment.]