Introducing the ECM (Part 6)
December 5th, 2006
(By Phil Johnson)
This is a continuation of Phil’s seminar-transcript from the 2006 Shepherds’ Conference.
Becoming cognizant of emergent
Now, if you men represent a typical cross-section of conservative evangelical pastors, in all likelihood, most of you had probably never even heard of the “emerging church movement” eighteen months ago. The issue more or less began to come to the forefront of discussion and debate in the evangelical movement after a cover article on the emerging church phenomenon in Christianity Today in November of 2004.
Since then, critics of the movement have multiplied, and the movement has become the focus of intense debate and controversy. Most of the critics are deeply and legitimately concerned about the overall direction of the movement and its long-term influence on the rest of the church. Over the past six months, this has probably become the dominant issue in the agenda for evangelical discussion and debate—in an era when the evangelical movement was already troubled by (and not quite sure what to do with) issues like “Open Theism,” “The New Perspective on Paul,” and various other relatively recent controversies.
It would be easy, actually, to critique the emerging church movement by reviewing some of Brian McLaren’s books, starting with A Generous Orthodoxy. The problem with that approach is that McLaren clearly does not speak for everyone in the “emerging church movement.” Whenever critics try to analyze the movement by examining what McLaren has written, people within the movement simply dismiss the criticisms by suggesting that whatever McLaren says is his own opinion, and it doesn’t necessarily reflect the movement itself.
That’s partly true and partly a deliberate evasion. The emerging subculture clearly fosters an environment where theological mavericks like McLaren are pretty much encouraged to throw whatever bizarre and even heretical notions they like on the table for discussion. So I do think Brian McLaren is fair game, and because he is such a large figure in the movement, I can’t really ignore him.
On the other hand, it’s also true that although McLaren has had a profound influence in the shaping of the emerging church, he doesn’t necessarily speak for everyone identified with the movement. To critique Brian McLaren is to critique Brian McLaren. It doesn’t necessarily go to the heart of the movement itself. So I’m going to say a few words about Brian McLaren and then move on to other issues.
About McLaren . . .
I gave a fairly lengthy review of one of Brian McLaren’s books (A New Kind of Christian) in the seminar on I did on postmodernism last year, so you can read that transcript or listen to the recording if you want to understand more of my objections to McLaren.
I will also say that McLaren’s book A Generous Orthodoxy is one of the absolute worst books I have ever read from Zondervan (and that’s saying quite a lot). Frankly, I think it raises grave doubts about whether Brian McLaren is really “orthodox” in any sense of the word. He borrows a lot from neo-orthodoxy—and that, I think, is probably the only sense in which he is entitled to apply the term “orthodox” to himself. He does claim to accept both the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene creed, but he also makes it clear that he doesn’t ultimately put much stock in the actual propositions that are affirmed in those or any other creeds, and he spends most of the book arguing against the idea that our defense of the Christian faith requires us to defend any of our actual doctrines.
Most of all, Brian Mclaren is hostile to the idea that we can claim any degree of certainty about any point of truth. This is, by the way, not an obscure idea in Brian McLaren’s works. This is one of the key points he labors to make almost any time he gets a platform to speak. He makes it clear over and over in all his books and lectures that he despises every hint of certainty or assurance. He thinks it is inherently arrogant and unspiritual to speak dogmatically about any point of spiritual truth.
And nothing epitomizes cocksure arrogance more in Brian McLaren’s mind than radio preachers. He says it makes him angry to listen to Christian radio and hear preachers who seem so sure that the doctrines they believe and teach are really true. Authentic “humility,” in Brian McLaren’s opinion, must start with a refusal to insist on the absolute truth of any given proposition. And (other than his absolute contempt for overconfidence) he’s not really even absolutely sure about the things he himself writes about.
McLaren portrays faith and certainty as opposing concepts. He says prefers the idea of confidence rather than “certainty,” but he carefully qualifies himself to make clear that he will only tolerate a relative kind of confidence. He himself is not “absolutely certain” about anything.
I should add that McLaren wants it made clear that he is not saying no absolutes exist. He’s only saying that if they exist, we can’t know them with any kind of absolute certainty. And therefore, he says, we should never proclaim anything unequivocally. And he himself generally follows that rule (except when he is railing on the certainty with which radio preachers tend to speak.)
Brian McLaren says, “Certainty is overrated . . . History teaches us that a lot of people thought they were certain and we found out they weren’t.” In a different interview, he said, “When we talk about the word ‘faith’ and the word ‘certainty,’ we’ve got a whole lot of problems there. What do we mean by ‘certainty’? . . . Certainty can be dangerous. What we need is a proper confidence that’s always seeking the truth and that’s seeking to live in the way God wants us to live, but that also has the proper degree of self-critical and self-questioning passion.”
McLaren himself is not sure about whether it’s proper to speak of homosexuality as “sin.” He recently published an article where he recounted how someone asked him where his church stood on the issue of homosexuality, and his answer was a lengthy apologetic for his own ambivalence on the issue. Here are his exact words:
Frankly, many of us don’t know what we should think about homosexuality. We’ve heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say “it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us.” That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think.
Then he added this:
Perhaps we need a five-year moratorium on making pronouncements. In the meantime, we’ll practice prayerful Christian dialogue, listening respectfully, disagreeing agreeably. When decisions need to be made, they’ll be admittedly provisional. We’ll keep our ears attuned to scholars in biblical studies, theology, ethics, psychology, genetics, sociology, and related fields. Then in five years, if we have clarity, we’ll speak; if not, we’ll set another five years for ongoing reflection.
That, frankly, is Brian McLaren’s approach to just about everything. He has been pressed on several occasions to name any doctrines or truths that he feels are sufficiently clear to be proclaimed dogmatically or preached with conviction, and he has made it absolutely clear that conviction and the full assurance of faith are things he holds in high contempt.
He even has the audacity to ask for a universal moratorium on preaching about the sin of sodomy. Apparently, he thinks the rest of us should be silent about the matter until he makes up his own mind about it. (And he clearly even hints that he might never actually form a settled opinion on the matter. In fact, I can already tell you that if he follows his own epistemological convictions, he won’t. He can’t.)
So when Brian McLaren claims adherence to the ancient ecumenical creeds, that claim, by Brian McLaren’s own admission, is dubious. He’s not really sure about anything he believes.
By any historic evangelical standard, McLaren’s religion is not authentic Christianity at all. And it does frankly raise major questions about the whole “emerging church movement” when he is given so much credence by people in that movement.
He is in almost every way an exact replica of Harry Emerson Fosdick, adapted to suit the 21st-century zeitgeist. Most of you will understand exactly what I mean by that.
Anyway, that’s enough about McLaren.
Quoted from Mr. McLaren’s site:
“If you have become convinced of something from one of my books, and you hear a preacher or friend say the opposite, if at all possible, just let it slide. Instead, try to hear what they’re saying in a charitable light and learn whatever you can from it. Affirm whatever you can and don’t argue about the rest. The proverb says it’s a person’s glory to overlook an offense, and Paul calls us to be longsuffering and patient, often reminding us not to be quarrelsome or contentious in any way, but to be kind to all, patient when wronged, and gentle with everyone.”
Takes care of all the arguments, doesn’t it?
I’d rather be labelled a hater, personally.
Why Brian? What drives you? I pray for you. I am driven to my knees day after day contemplating how glorious God is in Christ, and how precious His Word is, and how complete is His grace. This motivates me. What motivates Brian Mclaren?
Your description of Brian McLaren reminds me of a character from C.S. Lewis’s book, “That Hideous Strength” named Wither who never spoke clearly about anything and he often got characters he was speaking with to be the exact same way.
Is this man not sure that Jesus lived a perfect life and is the “Lamb of God” that was provided as the atoning sacrifice for sinful man? Is he unsure that Jesus is alive? If not this man is a heretic and not worthy to be called a follower of Christ. This man sees an opportunity to make a good living in the ear tickling business and I would say that is his motive. You could have put Joel Osteen’s name in this article and no one would have known the difference.
“Anyway, that’s enough about McLaren.”
Yes, why don’t we delegate the task of deconstructing McLaren to some worthy scholar so that we don’t all have to waste our time on him. While I find myself in sympathy with some of his critique his conclusions are wrong. He seems to be a confused fellow and those who follow him will end up even more confused.
What about K.Vanhoozer? Why do I not hear his name coming up in these discussions. At least with Vanhoozer you have a serious engagement with the post-modernisms. He probably doesn’t have any connection with the “emerging church movement”. But what McLaren is suffering from isn’t some sort of rare disease confined to ECM circles. Most of his ideas have been around for ages and ages. A road very well traveled. Vanhoozer has done some work drawing a map of that road.
Didn’t Pilate have this same problem? The folks that have trouble with truth are the ones who really don’t get it. Of course you don’t know what truth is, it hasn’t been revealed to you. When that happens, you know and you CAN stand in the pulpit and proclaim that you are absolutely certain.
Josh
“…the word of God is not bound.” 2 Timothy 2:9
Phil,
I see McLaren as more of a doppelgänger for priests in the Cult of Certainty than simply Fosdick-redux. From where I stand, were just in the middle of a long, drawn out Hegelian dialectic. You’re the Thesis (Cult of Certainty), McLaren is the Antithesis(Cult of Uncertainty), and somewhere in between both of you extremes is a healthy Synthesis (Certainty where warranted, comfortable with doubt where it belongs).
There’s an irony in your post here that demonstrates McLaren’s Antithesis for him; In assessing McLaren, you’ve demonstrated the “over-reach reflex” that is at the heart of McLaren’s critique of modern evangelicalism. Having read a lot of McLaren myself, your analysis comes across like much of what I glean from your analysis of scripture — read with an eye toward supporting pre-conconceived conclusions. I don’t think an honest reviewer could say that McLaren “despises” certainty, for example; that’s just your showing your propensity for being an oracle — rather than gleaning full certainty from scriptural passages that have been subtle and conflicted debates across many time frames and schools of thought, you’ve got your Certainty Decoder Ring fixed on McLaren’s heart. *You’re* certain he despises certainty itself, even though that’s manifestly not supported by McLaren’s own words.
If you ask the man, do you suppose he would affirm that he “despises” certainty? No, I don’t suppose he would either. But you know what he *really* thinks, deep down. You’re a priest of the Cult of Certainty, after all!
Seriously, though, it’s too bad that your audience doesn’t get the benefit of more than self-congratulatory caricature of McLaren and his ideas. You’re just empowering him as you do this, for eventually, *some* people take a look for themselves, and realize you’ve been indulging yourself in your teaching here.
-Touchstone
Has anyone here ever seen the website for The Center For Progressive Christianity? I think it’s perfect for this guy McLaren. They find more comfort “in the search for truth” than in “answers”. I’ll take answers every time, thank you! Check it out, it’s amazing. They are “repelled” by claims of Christianity to be the only way. Yet they use His name. Ah, we are in the end times.
Good thoughts Touchstone. I’d have to ponder on whether or not Hegel’s dialectic would necessarily be a good analogy/reference to describe the situation mainly because I don’t think the paradigm would be accurate. I think borrowing strengths to fit a modular reconstruction would be better. What I mean is, not to create a entirely new synthesis, but rather borrowing from both the thesis and antithesis. The synthesis would therefore not be entirely new, but both Orthodox and Progressive paradoxically.
Interesting how Touchstone says we have an “read with an eye toward supporting pre-conconceived conclusions.”
Now here’s a thought experiment:
1) Based on everything Touchstone says guess his view on evolution.
2) Check the link and see if you’re right
3) Isn’t it sad how predictable it was?
But its better to do the reverse. See what his views are on evolution and the guess what his view on certainty, orthodoxy, and EM are : bam you got it.
@ Touchstone: Just wanting to point out that the cookie cutter mold you say we are just blindly fitting into you are too… The knife cuts both ways.
If you want to refute Johnson’s view you’re going to have to show, esp. after his own words about certainty and his not so certain view about homosexuality, how he loves certainty in any fashion. Just b/c he wrote it somewhere else in his book or said in a sermon “I love certainty and the truth” DOES NOT MEAN HE DOES. Come out and show us how he can do that and make the comments he made.
Being a Christian, and following Christ, and loving Christ, means we love His Word. And His Word, the Bible, is the truth. From Genisis to Revelation, God wants us to live by every Word. This is our spiritual food.
Brian has very little Scripture referrences in his book that I read, and in other things I have read.
God didn’t make it as complicated as Brian wants to make it. He is bringing confusion and division.
God hates when brothers are divided.
I pray Brian would come back from his knee-jerk reaction toward those who mishandle the Holy Scriptures with arrogance, and embrace the Word of God again with devotion and humility.
I agree with Steven.
“I will worship … and praise Your name for Your lovingkindness and for Your Truth: for You have magnified Your Word above all Your name.” Pslam 138:2
Also: John 17:17
[...] Phil Johnson at Puplit magazine describes the word games used in emergent church circles. « Reading of Hebrews 9 and 10 | [...]
[...] Introducing the ECM (Part 6) [...]
“He even has the audacity to ask for a universal moratorium on preaching about the sin of sodomy. Apparently, he thinks the rest of us should be silent about the matter until he makes up his own mind about it.”
The authors view: Sodomy is a sin. End of discussion.
EC further questions that need to be considered:
- Have we let homosexuality become a “worse sin” because it is such an infected issue, thereby loosing the aspect of Gods grace for sinners?
- Are we treating homosexuals differently than other sinners? Are we ready to let homosexuals live, thrive and garher strength in the body of christ in order to be able to conquer their sin?
- Is it homosexual orientation or behavoiur that is sinful? Can we ever judge anyone for a potential for sinning? Then how come I can be in the church? As long as there is a trace of a possibilty that homosexuality is genetical/socially formed early in childhood rather than a chosen behaviour - shouldn´t the christian approach be to give them the benefit of doubt?
- Can christian homosexuals who have decided to live in sexual abstinence be members in the church? Leaders?
- How do we form a fellowship that is more family and less theatre, in order for abstaining homosexuals (and for that part, heterosexual singles) to have real, intimate relationships?
- How come the burgois family (mum, daddy, children) has become the norm? When our founder (Jesus) and foremost teacher (Paul) both where singles and asked us to consider celibacy for the sake of the kingdom?
-What if homosexual people could live together in pairs, abstaining from sex, but still being each others partners - maybe making vows, in what way would that be sinful?
Honestly, do you think that the proposition “Sodomy is sin” is enough of an answer?
Propositions are dangerous in that they are highly addictive and having reached truth, we believe that all has been said on the subject that can be said.
“Sodomy is sin” is a faithful reading of the Bible and the right answer (and enough of an answer) in a christendom context where christian ethics have been reduced to personal morality - the modern america up to about 1970. But it is not enough at this time in history! AND IT ISN´T THE WHOLE TRUTH AND THE ONLY THING THE BIBLE SAYS ON THE SUBJECT!
In a postchristendom reality, personal morality is not enough. Richard Hayes (in “The moral vision of the new testament”) postulates that Pauls ethics are based on four focal points; community, cross and new creation - it is informed by the community, and is collective in nature, not individualistic. It is based on the cross, containing both grace and a recognition of the hardships we can expect to encounter as disciples, and it is eschatological in that it is often informed by and motiveted with the future glory.
In the same way we need at this time in history to rethink the church as a missional community in a pagan world. This does not mean accomodation, but it means we need to be brave enough to question our propositions.
This specific question, then, changes from “Is homosexuality wrong?” to “How can we be church in a way, faithful to scripture, aware of our own shortcomings and need of salvation, that paints Jesus in such a vivid way that we are approachable for homosexuals? And then, how can we be a fellowship that not only demands celibacy, but also offers enough imtimacy to make it a possibilty worth considering?
In my opinion, the “truth” that the author desperately wants McLaren to confess to is seriously flawed in its over simplific treatment of a complex matter.
In the choice of having dinner with the author or McLaren, I would choose McLaren. I´d rather by the authors book dinner than the author, neither are probably going to change in any respect, but the book I can hide in my pocket.
[...] Introducing the ECM (Part 6) [...]