Should We Fight for the Truth?
December 8th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
From John’s upcoming book, The Truth War (Nelson, Spring 2007).
Many self-styled evangelicals today are openly questioning whether such a thing as truth even exists. Others suppose that even if truth does exist, we can’t be sure what it is, so it can’t really matter much. This type of thinking is epidemic, even among some of the evangelical movement’s most popular authors and spokespersons. Some flatly refuse to stand for anything because they have decided that even Scripture isn’t really clear enough to argue about.
Except for the massive scale on which such thinking has attained popularity today, and the way it is seeping into the church, such ideas themselves are really nothing new or particularly shocking. It is exactly the same attitude with which Pilate summarily dismissed Christ: “What is truth?” (John 18:38)
Certain avant-garde evangelicals sometimes act as if the demise of certainty is a dramatic new intellectual development, rather than seeing it for what it actually is: an echo of the old unbelief. It is unbelief cloaked in a religious disguise and seeking legitimacy as if it were merely a humbler kind of faith. But it’s not faith at all. In reality, the contemporary refusal to regard any truth as sure and certain is the worst kind of infidelity.
The church’s duty has always been to confront such skepticism and answer it by clearly proclaiming the truth God has revealed in His Word. We have been given a clear message for the purpose of confronting the world’s unbelief. That is what we are called, commanded, and commissioned to do (1 Corinthians 1:17–31). Faithfulness to Christ demands it. The honor of God requires it. We cannot sit by and do nothing while worldly, revisionist, and skeptical attitudes about truth are infiltrating the church. We must not embrace such confusion in the name of charity, collegiality, or unity. We have to stand and fight for the truth—and be prepared to die for it—as faithful Christians always have.
i am very interested in this book – and i appreciate you blogging some of its thoughts. I will be sure to buy it in Jan and give it serious consideration, as i have done with some of John’s previous books.
I hope his treatment of the emerging church will be truthful and honest.
Theological truth is what our soul needs.
There’s no other nuitrtion for our soul, then that of God’s truth.
And the heart is filled with joy when truth is digested, and we become strong in His grace and love, as our Father sets us apart for His purposes in this age of darkness and half-truths.
This small portion of the book was a blessing to read.
Like Andrew I am also looking forward to this book. I don’t have any reason to believe Pastor MacArthur’s treatment of the ECM will be anything but honest and truthful.
What he shares here about the demise of certainty:
“unbelief cloaked in a religious disguise and seeking legitimacy as if it were merely a humbler kind of faith”
was spot on, as far as I’m concerned. In my research and correspondence with adherents to the ECM over the last 2 years, I’ve met many individuals that this describes to a T. It is unbelief, and there is a push on, for other believers to accept this “humbler faith” as simply another viable expression of Christianity.
Knowing Pastor MacArthur’s integrity and attention to Scripture, I’m looking forward to recommending this book for those who still have questions about this new (old) expression, which is really nothing more than an expression of unbelief.
This does not seem an auspicious start. The very first sentence:
Many self-styled evangelicals today are openly questioning whether such a thing as truth even exists.
would appear to be a problem. I’ve been in an around the ECM for several years, including attending actual churches in the movement. And of course I’ve read a lot of the books and blogs that attend it. And not only have I not encountered *many* who “openly question [whether] such a thing as truth exists”, I’ve not run into *one*. In all my experience, not a single one.
Given that, it seems MacArthur would be well served to provide at least a token footnote reference for the incredulous, a quote from at least a fringe character that might fit into this description. As it is, though, this seems not just an exaggeration or a caricature of the ECM right from the get-go, but an invention by MacArthur.
The second sentence doesn’t fare much better:
Others suppose that even if truth does exist, we can’t be sure what it is, so it can’t really matter much.
I think it is true to say that many in the ECM believe that the absolute, objective truth *does* exist, but it’s often difficult to obtain with certainty and fine precision. But saying “it can’t really matter much” as a characterization of the ECM attitude strikes me as a thorough misrepresentation of the facts. Where truth is harder to make out, it requires humility and *pursuit*, precisely because the truth *does* matter, in my experience with ECM thinking.
Just in this small fragment, which looks like the opening section, MacArthur is signalling that he is prepared to think in hard polarities, in binary terms. In other words, if Christians don’t ascribe to the exhaustive, fine-grained reductionist certainties MacArthur points to, then they must be rejecting *all* certainty, all truth. That isn’t the case, in my experience, and one wonders if MacArthur has done any real investigation on the subject, as I think it would be hard to find cases of Christians — ECM or no — that think these are the only two options.
I look forward to reading the book when it is available, but this first taste does not bode well for it. What’s provided here seems quite apart from what’s really afoot in the ECM.
-Touchstone
This looks to be a truly important book coming at just the right time. I’ve been interacting with ECM for years (back when it was just starting to be a conversation) and been to church gatherings of same, and it does seem to me that Truth (capital T) is a victim. Whether it’s acknowledged or not, in actual practice the denial that Truth may be objectively apprehended is manifest, and the acid of this capitulation is dripping down to the level of doctrine.
The emergents I know well I love as fellow travelers, but it seems to me the “movement” is identifiable primarily for moving off the narrow path (or was Jesus just blowing smoke when he said that?) and wandering off in several wrong directions. It will be good to have MacArthur’s clear voice added to the conversation.
(Touchstone wrote)
“MacArthur is signalling that he is prepared to think in hard polarities, in binary terms. In other words, if Christians don’t ascribe to the exhaustive, fine-grained reductionist certainties MacArthur points to, then they must be rejecting *all* certainty, all truth. That isn’t the case, in my experience, and one wonders if MacArthur has done any real investigation on the subject”
This is exactly what’s going on in my estimation as well. And people that are advocating this book need to realize this.
As I read and re-read and re-re-read some of the things that are written (books and comments about books) within the current problem facing the church today, couldn’t it be said (truthfully) that if we are to have a definitive answer that might indeed bring a settling of the dust, it must begin with the very character of the one we (both sides) say we believe in and know, “God Himself”. Is not God by His very character and divine nature the God of certainty and everthing that He is, is absolute truth regardless of whether we understand it fully or not? Since that is the case according to His own declaration (Isa. 46:9)why is it that some (those within the ECM) have a continuing question to that fact? I keep hearing that “certainty and absolutivity” is hard to optain. That, in fact, is only true as far as human understanding may go but it has no effect on the certainty and absolutivity of God’s Word. His Word is the product of His character and nature, and that is “Absolutely Certain!” Maybe I am missing the confusion here, but you cannot have “uncertainty” in belief or in the Word of God unless the one who brought it to us is ‘Uncertain”. If I don’t understand an absolute truth from the Word of God, I still can be settled in its certainty because of the certain character and nature of the one who gave it. (I.E. God Himself). This whole debate isn’t about certainty at it’s core, it is really about truely believing that God is certain and then that true belief being lived out according to His certain Word! This really is a battle for Truth!!!
Think about it!
Terry
Thanks for the sneak peak
touchstone,
“objective truth does exits, but it’s difficult to obtain with certainty”
Isn’t this an oxymoron?
One does not obtain truth. When one obtains truth that means he is deciding what truth is, which is one of the hallmarks of our postmodern culture and as such has seeped into the church through the ECM. Truth, by its very nature, is absolute and concrete and stands on its own, and because of its nature it is always confrontational. It is not obtained, but either accepted or rejected.
In the arena of the church we are talking about spiritual truth; the truth about man and the truth about God. These truths are given propostionally through the Scriptures and as such are piercing to the heart and soul and reveal the thoughts and intentions of the heart for exactly what they are (the confrontation). So when one talks about obtaining spiritual truth he is actually saying what he will choose to accept. When an individual does this he is placing himself over the Scripture, and, in essence, is putting himself in God’s position. This is the ages old temptation, going back to the garden, that we should be like God, and as such is a rebellion against God and His authority over us. The postmodern/ECM mindset is nothing more than a new twist on the same story.
Since truth is confrontational it will always be polarizing. That should not cause us to shrink back from declaring it as we are the household of God, the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. So in declaring the truth, the truth of the Scriptures, John will automatically polarize those who will not accept the truth.
Also, if we do not have truth, we do not have certainty, in any area.
Hi Don,
I think it may be if you’re looking at my typo — “exits”, but I meant “exists” of course. Given that, no, I don’t see that as self contradictory at all. Limited powers of perception or knowledge do not mean limited or subjective *existence* of the thing being perceived or known.
If I hear Paul tell me that for now I “see through a glass darkly”, that doesn’t mean Jesus is less real, or obscure or certain in His nature. Rather, Paul is explaining to us that *we* have limited perception and powers of understanding. Does that mean we can’t see anything or know anything? Not at all. Does it mean we should believe we see things “face to face” in the here and now, as we will one day? No, again. It does not at all deny or diminish God’s absolute truth to admit that we aren’t perfect in our understanding or perception of us. It’s a statement about *us*, not God.
-Touchstone
When I read the ECM’er responses, I’m reminded of a the shell game tricksters used to play in New York City before Guilani was mayor and cracked down on “low grade crime.” Truth does exist but we can’t be certain what is true.
I find that a revealing comment on their view of God’s attributes. Here we have the Creator of the Universe revealing His mind in human language so that He can be understood outside of oral story (which can be twisted and turned in many directions) while He has preserved His word through many attempts to corrupt it so that we could read it for ourselves…
What ECMers are saying with their shell game is that the Creator lacks sufficient capability, no-how, etc. to communicate clearly with those whom He designed and created. I’m certainly glad that these “voices” have come along to enlighten so many about God’s incompetently written, fuzzy, and difficult to understand truth.
We should all be thankful we have the Emergent folks and their voices to tell us what ails us…
It’s amazing, though, that they don’t know much accept what others don’t know, can’t find, or shouldn’t believe. So much for their hermeneutics of humility.
Thank you Dr. MacArthur for writing this book at such a time as this.
Keith Crosby
I mostly agree with your assessment of the situation. I would say that the youth suffer from lack of truth more than anyone else here in this country.
However, let me play devil’s advocate and say that I don’t believe you. Take, for example, this quote:
“Many self-styled evangelicals today are openly questioning whether such a thing as truth even exists. Others suppose that even if truth does exist, we can’t be sure what it is, so it can’t really matter much. This type of thinking is epidemic, even among some of the evangelical movement’s most popular authors and spokespersons.”
What exactly do you mean by “many” and “epidemic?” These words can have a lot of different numbers that people are thinking behind them. Exactly how many? How epidemic? Every other church? etc.
I hope this gives you a good challenge. =D
-T-Shirt Ninja
Touch,
Paul also said, “for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which i have committed unto Him against that Day. … Study to show yourself approved to God, a workman that needs not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” 2 Tim. 1:12;2:15
The absolute truth that Christ died and rose again, and that He is God, and was born of a virgin, is something that should be sure and certain for the heart and mind of God’s chosen children. The Father loves His own, and He will gladly give the Holy Spirit to us, more so than an earthly father would give good things unto his own children.
“the foundations of God stand sure”. Amen.
There are many who “have erred concerning the truth”. May God have mercy on their souls.
” The works of His hands are verity [true,trustworthy] and judgement; all His commandments are sure.
They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness.” Psalm 111:7-8
There’s the simple truth, and the pure truth. This truth should excite us more than anything. The absolute truth that Christ died for me, and rose from the dead for me, and that He is the Sovereign King of heaven and earth.
Paul knew this, and he says we can have the same understanding and knowledge of this awesome absolute truth.
What an honorform the God of truth.
Don,
I completely agree with every part of your last comment.
Enthusiastically.
With complete certainty.
I’d be surprised if Dan here, Brian McLaren, Pagitt, Tony Jones, or any of the other prominents in the conversation would do anything but affirm their certainty about the truths* you commend here. In the emergent circles I’ve been in, there *is* a passionate certainty on these issues. These are not the things that divide, and it’s unfortunate that MacArthur and others foster, or don’t discourage the perception that the ECM has abandoned certainty about *all* truth. That’s a misrepresentation, if that is in fact what is being presented.
In any case, I couldn’t be more in agreement with what you’ve said. It’s the clarity and passion about these core truths that I believe many emergents think gets a bit lost in the shuffle, sitting cheek-by-jowl with *certainty* about the lordship/no-lordship question, or supra/infralapsarianism. It’s the plain and pure devotion to the things that *are* plain and pure in the Bible — the very best and most important things — that motivates a lot of them.
It would be nice to see them get a little credit for that, for a hearty Amen! to comments like yours here!
It gets an Amen! world without end! from me.
Best,
-Touchstone
* I read Bell’s Velvet Elvis and my understanding was that he took on the “virgin birth” issue as a *hypothetical*, a test of “springs” vs. “bricks”. If I recall correctly (and am confident I do) Bell affirms the virgin birth in the Mars Hill statement of faith, and elsewhere, including MP3s of his sermons, and press interviews, McLaren affirms the virgin birth. I don’t doubt that there are emergents that *do* wonder about the virgin birth, but this is not at all a distinctive of the movement that I’ve seen, any more than Stalinism was a distinctive of Martin Luther King’s movement. If you have information that contradicts this, I stand ready to be corrected.
I taught high school students for 32 years before becoming a pastor Sept. 06. I’m amazed at the similarities b/w education and pastoring. Always somebody with a new theory or “how to” book that catches the administrator’s attention so everybody does it. I jumped through many hoops over the years, and I learned a principle early on that I plan on using as a pastor–stick with the basics. I taught grammar, persuasive writing, vocabulary, research, and the classics of world, American, and British lit. I avoided classes like Leisure Reading and Movie Ethics.
For me, these are my basics as a pastor: preach the Word; teach the Word; seek God’s face.
I don’t think Jesus is ever going to say to me, “Jim, you took Me too seriously. You should have lightened up a little. You went too deep and pointed minds too high. My Word is unclear because I couldn’t control what happened during transmission after My apostles died!”
Don’t other pastors and teachers have a Godly fear of standing before Jesus and giving an account of what they presented from the pulpit? I know I do.
Brian McLaren once calling the cross of Jesus Christ “propaganda” certainly attempts to devalue truth. That truth saved my soul. McLaren should apologize to Christ for his blasphemous words, or at least declare himself an unbeliever.
touchstone,
Good to hear your passion for the core beliefs of the faith.
And I suppose these are all laid upon the foundation of the 5 solas.
By Grace alone,
By faith alone,
By Christ alone,
By Scripture alone,
For the Gloria of God alone.
Brian McLaren’s theology is to me wishy-washy, if he has a theology at all.
I have a good friend who knows Brian, and he is quite the gentleman, and deep thinker, But for what ever reason, he has taken a path that leads to destruction, and I pray he would return to the straight and narrow.
I don’t know about the other ECM teachers and leaders.
“I am … the Truth… . No one comes to the Father except through Me.” John 14:6
“If you abide in My Word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:31-32
The Truth matters as our Sufficiency, always has and always will: God is good! Looking forward to reading this book.
Touchstone: “As it is, though, this seems not just an exaggeration or a caricature of the ECM right from the get-go, but an invention by MacArthur.”
In the comments under the previous post, “Touchstone” accused me of shadow-boxing a caricature. Here he accuses John MacArthur of “a thorough misrepresentation of the facts,” and claims (apparently with a straight face) that he is unaware of anyone who resists the notion of objective, absolute truth.
Well, here’s the token “footnote reference for the incredulous” he requested. These data from various Barna surveys and other sources have been around, and widely publicized, for quite some time. For someone who claims to “been in and around the ECM for several years” to pretend to be unaware of the problem that is being pointed out by both MacArthur and the Barna statistics is just one more reason to regard the “conversation” itself as something less than a good-faith quest for truth.
Without going into a further, possibly fruitless, dissection of the details of “Touchstone’s” comments, I will say that I think it should be obvious to most readers that he himself is advocating a perspective on truth and certainty which does indeed amount to precisely the kind of sanctimonious, baptized skepticism MacArthur was describing, if it’s not carefully balanced by a strong and clear statement of faith in which at least the VITAL articles of biblical and evangelical faith are affirmed as sure and non-negotiable.
Now, “Touchstone” also professes to despise caricatures, but note that he nevertheless relies heavily on them. He wants to pretend his differences with MacArthur are all about things like infra/supralapsarianism, and he clearly implies that MacArthur (or someone) is claiming that we are “perfect in our understanding or perception.”
The actual dispute between the historic evangelical position and the ECM is not about any of those things. It starts with the question of whether God’s Word is to be trusted and believed as His authoritative revelation to us. It includes the central meaning of the cross, and it extends to important moral questions such as whether homosexuality is sin. If all those things are really supposed to be treated as up for grabs, then it’s no exaggeration to say that “objective truth, if it exists at all, doesn’t really matter very much” in the real, practical world where we live and minister.
But the real picture is far worse than “Touchstone” suggests. I’d be very surprised if anyone could name a single distinctive of evangelical doctrine that has not either been flatly denied or seriously undermined by ECM skepticism.
No?
In fact, it seems to me that skepticism about all things evangelical is a running theme at “Touchstone’s” own blog. Think I’m exaggerating? It would be very interesting to see a list of evangelical essentials that “Touchstone” himself would be willing to affirm whole-heartedly, confidently, without qualification, and without waffling. I’ll wager that it would be a very short list.
Incidentally, here’s precisely why I keep saying I don’t think ECM types really want a serious conversation with their critics: The only “conversation” they are interested in is one in which the ground rules basically concede several pliable notions about “truth” up front. That fact surfaces in almost every one of these comment threads. Unless you’re willing to take a middle-road position and avoid any kind of categorical criticism of the ECM, you are going to be labeled an extremist and excused from the “dialogue.” Notice that the groundwork for that has already been laid, before anyone has even read what MacArthur has to say.
Hi Phil,
I tell people who ask for a starting point that I unreservedly affirm and support with *certainty* the Nicene Creed and the Apostle’s Creed. I can quote them here, but I’m sure you’re familiar.
How is that for starters. Orthodox enough? Let me know if that’s not sufficient to be on the playing field. I don’t claim cosmic certainty on the Lordship debate, though, for example.
As for a conversation, I’m happy to have you take any position you want. All I ask for is honesty and earnesty in the discussion, and offer that in return. You don’t have to commit to middle-of-the-road anything as far as I’m concerned. What I *am* concerned about, as I said above, is getting to a point where an honest discussion can even take place. If I’ve caricatured you or anyone else, I stand to be corrected. As it is, it appears John MacArthur and you are committed to a premise as to what the ECM conversation is about that is not nearly representative of what’s actually happening. *No* edifying discussion will come of that.
My experience strongly suggests that while we may not agree, we can benefit and find common ground and build the body of Christ up when each side starts with the knowledge that other side *gets* what is being presented. As Scot McKnight says, it doesn’t really get in gear as a fruitful exercise until the other side says “Now, you’ve got it!”. That’s not a statement of *agreement*, but of understanding. From what I’ve read here, you and John MacArthur are quite a ways from a point where ECM luminaries will say “Yes, you’ve got it”, even as you reject their argument.
If you need anything more than my enthusiastic, unwaffling affirmation of the Apostole’s and Nicene Creed in order to qualify here, ask away. I’m open and ready to present and argue any or all parts of my theology. I don’t have a pre-made confessional statement on my blog, but I’m not the least bit afraid to lay my beliefs out there, and defend them or apply them to the conversation.
In any case, you can send me away or not, but hear this: if you’re intent on arguing from the opening statement that EMs are characterized by a motivation to question *all* truth, (and from John MacArthur’s words here that seems to be the case — happy to be corrected on how I misread that) this book, and the surrounding conversation will be profoundly negative in experience and effect for all parties involved.
-Touchstone
*P.S. I absolutely understand the challenge in getting a handle on ECM. It’s relatively amorphous and fluid, even self-contradictory at times, compared to other “movements” or schools of thought. So I don’t suppose it’s an *easy* task for the authors of such a book to get a fair handle on things. I’d even say that no matter what generalizations are offered as a starting point, they’d have some sort of identifiable problem/contradiction that people will complain about.
However, from what I’ve seen here, and the other things I’ve been able to Google up that are connected, the initial “handle” being offered isn’t even close to the experience I’ve had. Caucusing with friends and acquaintances who attend and participate in EM churches and communities, they uniformly dismiss the opening premises MacArthur offers. I haven’t had time to do a blog scan on this specifically, but I think if you do, you will find that the EM reactions to your opening here is congruent with my reaction.
Phil,
Sorry, I forgot to address an important point you raised. I don’t claim to be an expert on EM myself, but I do claim to be widely read and conversant on the subject. I’ve also attended churches that identify with the ECM, an have had ongoing online discussions with other ECM thinkers on and off over the last two or three years.
In all that time, I have not run across a single “emergent” that categorically dismissed the existential reality of absolute truth. I *have* run across posters at the now-defunct discussion boards at emergent village that were clearly in denial of any and all orthodox dogma. But even then, they were quite sure of the truth of their apostate ideas. In other words, it was denial *of the* truth, as opposed to denial *of* truth.
Maybe my experience is too limited. Maybe I’m being naive. If so, then I should think it quite easy for John MacArthur to point to “poster child” case — an assertion by one of the ECM thought leaders that provided the actual *substance* to back up his opening claim. I can’t recall such an assertion, and I’m sure that would have caught my attention if I’d happened upon such.
Be that as it may, though, I’m quite sure one could find such examples if one looked diligently. I’ll stipulate that right now. But, as I mentioned in a previous comment, critics could have and *did* identify Martin Luther King Jr.’s movement as a communist insurgency against American democracy. No doubt there were communists to be found on the bandwagon.
But the denial of absolute truth is not at all what ECM is about, in my experience. I’ve not run into this attitude in my travels through that community.
-Touchstone
My view of the issue and the people, from my own experience with ECM, differs from Touchstone’s. Perhaps one of the areas of misunderstanding here is what is affirmed v. what is actually practiced; and the still relevant distinction between leaders and, for lack of better word, laity.
If you approach the pomo in the pew, it is likely that he may not even know what pomo is. That’s because it’s an academic notion, and usually it’s the academics and so-called (sometimes self-appointed) leaders who are bandying the word and its implications about.
Further, ask one if he is interested in “the truth” and of course you’ll get a hearty YES! But the finer points of the meaning of and quest for same are not something he is trained to think about. Once again, the academics and leaders (as is always the case in any intellectual movement) do the thinking and leading, and the people follow.
It is quite proper then, and necessary, for the Carsons and Scott Smiths and MacArthurs and Phil Johnsons to take a close look at what these leaders are saying and writing, and analyzing it. Each one of these men, BTW, backs up his case with ample examples, so it is quite erroneous and really just a dodge to say there is no true understanding here. It is indeed a caricature to deem it so. I find what is being written by these folks completely in line with my own experiences/conversations/interactions with ECM.
There is now too much material in books and blogs to say that the ECM does not have a de facto dynamic, and IMO Phil’s paper has captured it. I am quite certain that MacArthur’s book is amply supported by footnotes and citations. More than this cannot be demanded without seeming foolish.
So I find MacArthur’s opening statement quite apt:
“Many self-styled evangelicals today are openly questioning whether such a thing as truth even exists. Others suppose that even if truth does exist, we can’t be sure what it is, so it can’t really matter much. This type of thinking is epidemic, even among some of the evangelical movement’s most popular authors and spokespersons. Some flatly refuse to stand for anything because they have decided that even Scripture isn’t really clear enough to argue about.”
Everything in this paragraph is factual, and easily confirmed with a thing called Google. The one opinion expressed is that such thinking is “epidemic.” Well, of course it is. “Epidemic” simply means that many in the same community are hit with something at the same time. Well, our community is the church, and all over this landscape various levels of ECM and pomo praxis are quite evident, often ADMITTEDLY so! To deny this is simply to be willfully blind.
I expect that MacArthur’s book will be met with a lot of anecdotal exhalations such as, “I haven’t seen that!” or victim avoidances like, “It’s so unfair!”
What would be a welcome surprise would be a rebuttal that actually addresses the points and provides substance instead of superciliousness. Only then will this “conversation” have made substantial progress.
jsb,
I think there’s a useful way to assess this. Let’s see what critics point to as specific affirmations of the generalizations they are offering. If this is an “epidemic”, it ought to be easy to find some juicy quotes from ECM thought leaders that affirm something like what John MacArthur suggests is representative of the movement. If I was going to make the assertions John MacArthur opens with, I’d be sure to have a solid list of quotes and footnotes to back up my case. I haven’t read the book, so I’m allowing that perhaps he *does* do that with the assertions in his excerpts here. I don’t have the book yet, so I can only go on what’s provided here and elsewhere on the web. Even so, I’d be sure to back up my post even for a web article with some tangible, compelling examples.
I await some examples from the book or the team here that puts some wood behind their statements. If I’ve missed the examples of ECM luminaries “openly questioning whether such a thing as truth even exists”, please point them out to me, someone. I didn’t see them here in these articles as I expected. I do know how to use a search engine, thanks, and have even spent some time in the past week or so trying to dig up something that might substantiate such claims. If you’ve got the good, gimme the links, and I’ll ammend my remarks, and apologize to Mr. MacArthur and Mr. Johnson.
For what it’s worth, I don’t care at all about the use of “epidemic”. No problem with that assertion. Whatever ECM is, it does seem to be fairly widespread by now, and growing at a robust clip.
As for what’s affirmed vs. what is practiced, I’m happy to say that what is *practiced* is what really defines a movement. That said, things go off the rails quickly if one side takes the liberty of asserting that “this is what the other side *really* thinks, even though they say otherwise!”. That strategy — employed by either side — begs for escalating emotions and offense, and diminishing chances for understanding and edifying exchange. I’m quite able to point fingers at my own evangelical community’s practitioners — myself chief among them — as failed examples of doctrine in action. I know ECMs in the pews will similar fail to mirror the affirmations of the thought leaders of the school; remember, also, that ECM really is *not* a denomination in the typical sense of the term. If I had to guess, I’d say less than a third of Christians who identify themselves as “emerging/emergent” actually attend an ECM church as their home church. There are a great number who remain and continue in the church congregation they belonged to before they ever heard the terms “postmodern” or “emergent”.
At any rate, if I missed the “backing up” examples you mentioned, I’d be glad to see them.
Thanks,
-Touchstone
I understand that we must fight for the truth and we must refute heresy as we are told in Titus 1:9 and the ECM completely loses itself in trying to mold church to “today’s people” I wrote a post on the “Power of the Gospel”
Check it out and let me know what you think.
http://contendearnestly.blogspot.com/2006/12/power-of-gospel.html
Touchstone:
1. I did give you a link to some data published by Barna that substantiates MacArthur’s statement. You seem to have ignored it.
2. Reread the blogpost. The opening statement of this post—like the book it is quoted from—is about the climate of broad evangelicalism in general, and neither a statement about “the emerging church movement” generally nor an attempt to characterize what this or that specific Emergent leader is saying. If you ever actually read the book, you’ll need to try to follow what he’s actually saying without assuming every negative statement he makes about the drift of evangelical thinking is an explicit accusation against the ECM. (Follow that rule of thumb always, and it might also enable you to follow this side of the conversation better.) When MacArthur attributes an opinion to, say, McLaren, he quotes McLaren and documents it. Your demand for further substantiation of an already-documented claim is yet another reason why I’m not inclined to expect that the sort of “dialogue” you are asking for could ever be profitable.
3. Precisely four paragraphs from the book have been posted here to date. Nothing in the excerpts so far even mentions “the emerging church.” And yet, you instantly accused MacArthur of “not just an exaggeration or a caricature of the ECM . . . but an invention.” When I directed you to documentation for the point he actually made, you ignored the documentation and persisted in complaining about how inadequate is the “handle” he gives for the ECM—even though no such “handle” has even been suggested yet. Meanwhile, you cynically compare MacArthur’s criticism of the ECM with the John Birch Society’s criticism of MLK. That’s yet another reason why your genteel rhetoric about how we might make “dialogue” with you more profitable fails to warm my heart.
4. Regarding the ecumenical creeds, I specifically asked you for a list of evangelical truths you might give your wholehearted assent to. You haven’t even bothered to affirm anything that would distinguish you as a Protestant. Arius the heresiarch defended himself by pointing out that he could affirm everything in the Apostles’ Creed. So no, a nod to two ancient ecumenical creeds is not “orthodox enough” for me. It doesn’t even settle the basic question of what the gospel is and whether you affirm it. Since our evangelical distinctives (including everything Protestants have always unanimously affirmed about justification by faith alone and the atoning work of Christ) are precisely what many ECM leaders and several other broad-evangelical movements say they want put back on the table, your reply sounds more like an evasion than an answer to the actual question I asked.
5. I did notice that your follow-up posts dispensed with the earlier (and very un-Emerging) tone of cocksure certainty, and you have inserted a few disclaimers acknowledging that you “haven’t read the book,” and whatnot. I think you ought to go a step further and first actually read what MacArthur has written before you react to it. In other words, listen to what we’re actually saying before you demand a conversation on your terms. That might also enable us to have a more meaningful conversation about it. Perhaps not, but it’s worth a good-faith effort.
Touchstone,
I note you give assent to the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. Tell me, since the emphasis of these creeds isn’t the authority, clarity, and sufficiency of Scripture…
Romans 1:18-32 speaks of man’s depravity, even condemning homosexual behavior as an act of willful intentional rebellion against God. How do you read Romans 1:18-32. Is it clear that people have no excuse for denying Him? Is it clear that all people who are not “born again” or “born from above” (to uses Jesus’ terminology found in the Scriptures) are without excuse because God’s existence is revealed by Him through the creation? Is it true that there is no other way to the Father but through Christ and that eternal life is obtained only through Him and by His name (Acts 4:12; John 14:6).
How about marriage–is it only to be one man and one woman as ordained by God from the beginning (Matthew 19:4ff)?
How about the emphatic doctrines given by the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 15? Has Paul oversimplified things or since all Scripture is inspired and profitable for doctrine, reproof, rebuking, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17) so that all men and women are equipped for life and faith and practice is it possible to take clear positions more often than not? Since Paul’s writings are Scripture (2 Peter 3;15-16) doesn’t this mean that to doubt Paul’s epistles, etc. is to doubt God? After all Scripture was written to be easily understood and applied (2 Timothy 3:17)–even Timothy was taught the Scriptures from his youth.
Touchstone, how about those who deny the doctrines handed down from the Bible, the Gospel… Paul says in Galatians 1:8-9 that if any one teaches a different gospel than delivered in the Scriptures that person is accursed. Wouldn’t it be unloving for God to give us hard to understand Scriptures and then hold us accountable for representing His doctrines (you know doctrines means teachings, precepts, etc.) by calling accurses anyone who taught in contradiction, or caused others to stumble (i.e. Jesus’ warning in Matthew 18?
How about 1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Timothy 3:1ff–elders are to be men and an elder must be a one woman man. The reason, in verse 13 is the creation order.
What can’t you affirm in these scriptures?
Keith
I would also recommend to Touchstone (and anyone else who is interested in ECM) Scott Smith’s “Truth & the New Kind of Christian.” It has a good tone (so much so that Tony Jones endorsed it) and gets directly to the main issues.
I’m reminded also of Richard Weaver’s classic “Ideas Have Consequences.” That’s what’s most troubling to me about so much ECM leadership. It seems a heady revolution at the moment, lots of ideas being tossed out and traditions challenged, but what’s the cost down the road? We have a long history of heresies in the church and how they begin. It is altogether proper, then, to assess the ideas of ECM now, because they have consequences like every other idea.
This is really the more important thing from my pespective. “In the pew” are fine and well meaning and Christ following people, sitting alongside pretenders and hypocrites, and everything in between. But the influence of what is preached and taught has a real effect. If something grows into heresy (like universalism, which seems on the rise) then you’re talking real trouble.
Again, I’d like to see actual engagement with the propositions and examples in books like MacArthur’s. We can have a civil exchange on these matters, certainly.
JSB,
Concur with you on several fronts. I’ve not read R. Scott Smith’s book, but have had it recommended to me by two friends, one who thoroughly identifies with EM. I always appreciate good, civil tone, but that’s not the primary goal. Primarily, I’m interested in understanding, and good, hard, reasoned debate on the merits. I’ve absolutely no problem with scathing criticisms of EM (or Calvinist, or…) arguments; the more direct, clear, and pointed the better, in my book. Phil, John, or anyone else can be as sharp (even harsh) as they want, just please don’t make it an exercise in knocking down strawmen.
[Just as an aside, I'm the marauding conservative in another exchange happening at the moment, as I've been extremely critical (and with high confidence, no less!) of McLaren's recent attendance/endorsement of the "Open Door Community Church" in Arkansas. I think my tone was civil, but the message is quite heavy and serious. I think it's also on point to what McLaren is saying/demonstrating. All of which to say: have at it, just keep your criticisms tailored to arguments I *did* make.]
As for “Ideas have Consequences”, I couldn’t agree more; the stakes here are very high, and the potential for categorical errors is real and present. Heresy and apostasy are legitimate concerns here. But it’s important to remember that any *healthy* change in the church is going to receive criticisms and allegations of heresy and unfaithfulness etc. It’s bitterly ironic to read some of the sons and daughters of Luther, the product of the Reformation, resisting reformation because it’s different. That’s what a reformation *is*.
So, I’m aware of the scope and scale of this issue, and take it very seriously. That seriousness is the reason why I’m dismayed by the just the opening four paragraphs of the book here; I’m waiting to read more, but at first glance, this doesn’t look like a serious take on the issues and arguments at hand. More as this develops, I guess. Phil might be able to fill me on how I interpreted those four paragraphs wrong. More on that in my reply to him.
Regarding “in the pew”, I agree again. Preaching and teaching should be the focus of the discussion. As I will mention to Phil, Barna phone surveys are precisely *not* the basis to evaluate EM thought/doctrine/theology, any more than they are a basis for evaluating Calvinism. There is plenty of direct sources to analyze in view now. MacArthur has more than he needs to work with in the positive claims and assertions by the leading lights of the movement.
Or is it a conversation?
Thanks,
-Touchstone
Phil,
1. Barna stats. I’ve seen these before, and read Revolution and discussed it at length several times across different theological communities. Could MacArthur simply be lamenting the cultural slide into equivocation about propositional theology? If so, while I have plenty of misgivings about Barna’s research, I’ll stipulate as self-evident the general trend he’s identifying. But two sentences later, MacArthur says this:
This type of thinking is epidemic, even among some of the evangelical movement’s most popular authors and spokespersons
What??? There’s an epidemic of in evangelical leadership of thinking that truth doesn’t exist? Or that it doesn’t matter, even if it does? So much for the “confusion in the pews” idea, per Barna. MacArthur is attaching this ideology to evangelical teachers and leaders.
So, I ask again: who are these leaders and spokespersons in the evangelical community that a) wonder whether truth exists and/or b) suppose it doesn’t matter if truth exists, if we have not certainty about it? If it’s an *epidemic* “even among some of the evangelical movement’s most popular authors and spokespersons”, then some really compelling quotes and examples of this should be easy to point out.
I don’t doubt the social trend in the culture. I affirm it. What I think is *way* off is MacArthur’s assertion that evangelical leaders or ECM leaders have adopted and proposed a “hard postmodernist” viewpoint (there is no truth, truth is irrelevant). Pointing to Barna data doesn’t address this at all.
Also, please clarify if you can: is Barna’s study cited in the book itself, or is this an “add-on” here? How about the link to the Prison Fellowship article?
2-3. Thanks, I’ve read the post several times now. Even if we just constrain this to the specific labels MacArthur *does* use here — “evangelicals” — I’m still not aware of evangelical leaders that a) deny the existence of truth or b) suppose truth doesn’t matter if we can’t be certain about it. This is really easy to adjudicate between us: show me an example of a sermon, book or even a blog post be one of these leaders that asserts a) or b). I won’t even worry for now about whether it is “epidemic”; just a handful of good, clear references will do.
I do anticipate the MacArthur here is talking about the epistemology of ECM. I *did* read the previous eight installments, and they very much point to this post addressing the ECM. But forget just the focus on ECM for now — as you say, he did *not* invoke the term in this four paragraph section. Who are these evangelical thought leaders that deny the existence of truth and dismiss it as irrelevant when/if it’s not perfectly apparent?
4. I’m a cradle Baptist (Baptist General Conf.), so that’s the trajectory I am coming from. Polity is congregational, Doctrine is Arminian (Baptist flavor). For the last 10 years or so, I’ve been attending a Calvary Chapel church. I think that’s properly defined as “Calminian”:
1. Depravity: Calvinist
2. Election: Mixed — God’s choice enabling man’s choice
3. Atonement: Arminian – Jesus died for all
4. Irresistable Grace: Arminian — free will under God’s desire
5. Perseverence:
This represents, for the most part, my current doctrinal orientation.
I’m an evangelical because I believe all believers are called by scriptural commandment to preach to, teach, and disciple all men, aggressively and enthusiastically spreading the Gospel (Matt 28:19-20).
Let’s see, what else? Solas?
1. Sola Scriptura: Bible is authoritative, infallible. “Inerrant” is a problematic term. Somewhat sympathetic to RCC doctrine of “mutual affirmation/interpretation” between scripture and tradition.
2. Sola Fide: Affirm it without qualification
3. Solus Christus: Christ is our only mediator for our salvation.
4. Sola gratia: works do not help at all for salvation. Faith without works is dead. Sympathetic to RCC complaints that many Protestant’s view of RCC soteriology is confused.
I can expand at length on any of these, but will leave it there for now, as this post is already long.
With respect to “on the table”, let me be clear for my part. Significant elements of the Reformation *are* on the table for ECM types. For my part they are as well. Semper Reformanda. I don’t comfortably identify with ECM myself, as I’m undecided about the merits of Catholic claims to ecclesial authority. It’s not very “postmodern” or “emergent” to convert to the RCC, which is something I’m not planning on, but see as a possibility, as I read and pray with my Bible in hand. I do identify with many of the reformational ideas in the ECM, however. I’m convinced by my reading of the Bible, and trying to live and spread the Gospel, that much of conservative evangelicalism is sorely in need of reform.
If you’re suggesting that ECM needs to affirm modernist Protestant evangelicalism as it currently exists to be “valid”, you’re simply arguing by definition. I think many elements of ECM thought I *have* come across do contradict many things that John MacArthur has declared to be absolute truth. But it’s disingenuous to suggest that because I or anyone else believe in the absolute truth, but think that MacArthur simply misunderstands it, doesn’t mean I’m *denying* the existence of truth. I’m just saying MacArthur might not be normative of absolute truth — far from it in some cases. If that’s “out of bounds” — too radical for you to consider, so be it.
5. I haven’t read the book. But I’ve read a lot of MacArthur. I would welcome a departure from the approach he demonstrated in “Charismatic Chaos”, for example. Maybe I’m wrong, and he’s changed motifs. But the first four paragraphs don’t bode well, even as I grant that they *are* just the first four paragraphs.
The proof is in the pudding. If Emergent leaders read this thing and say “I disagree with his conclusion, but MacArthur gets what we’re saying” in reaction to MacArthur, I will publicly and earnestly apologize to you and John. If, however, I get hold of the book, and discover that MacArthur *was* talking about ECMs “denial of the existence of truth”, or their claims “truth doesn’t matter, because it isn’t clear”, I will be quite disappointed in your posts here. Not only will MacArthur be assailing arguments that aren’t being made, you’ll be assisting in the obfuscation of that fact. Spinning, in other words.
Time will tell.
-Touchstone
Touchstone…..
“Calminian”….I like that. Is that like a 3pt Calvinist?
Cindy,
The first reference to the term I can recall is from A.W. Tozer who called himself a “Calminian” (I think he also offered the option of the “Arminist” label). Anyway, that’s a term I’ve heard Calvary Chapel leaders use in (not Chuck that I remember, but other leaders). “Three point Calvinist” I’ve heard used mostly as a tongue-in-cheek name for “Arminian”, but I suppose they might be used interchangeably.
I see, looking back, that I forgot to finish out my five points. With respect to perserverence above (the ‘P’ in TULIP), I, like Calvary Chapel, affirm the perseverence of “true believers”, but recognize the problems that term brings with it. It appears that many that claim to be believers are not in fact believers.
-Touchstone
Touchstone…
There is one more thing I would like to add to your last comment.
Why would you consider converting to the RCC? Did I read your statement correctly? The RCC is a dead church which will envoke God’s harsh condemnation during the tribulation period. The RCC is the church of Thyatira or “continual sacrifice”.
As far as some denying absolute truth….yes there are many especially in the WCC who deny the absolute authority of scripture. There are some who are now denying the creation in Genesis…that it was just a story and not truth.
Touchstone: “I ask again: who are these leaders and spokespersons in the evangelical community that a) wonder whether truth exists and/or b) suppose it doesn’t matter if truth exists, if we have not certainty about it? If it’s an *epidemic* “even among some of the evangelical movement’s most popular authors and spokespersons”, then some really compelling quotes and examples of this should be easy to point out.”
I’m inclined to ask you where are the Christian leaders who are answering postmodernism’s skeptical relativism with a message that emphasizes the clarity and objectivity and certainty of God’s revelation? There certainly are not many in the ECM. In fact, both within the ECM and the larger evangelical movement, there are plenty of leaders who by deliberate equivocation (or even silence) have capitulated to relativism and apathy about truth–either ignoring the frightening trends Barna’s statistics seem to reflect, or by catering to them and tickling postmodern ears.
But (even though I answered your original request for documentation, and you sidestepped the issue by asking for more and different kinds of documentation) it probably wouldn’t be fair to answer your question with a question. You say you see absolutely no evidence that “this type of thinking [postmodern relativism and apathy about the truth] is epidemic, even among some of the evangelical movement’s most popular authors and spokespersons.”
I think Brian McLaren’s refusal to acknowledge that homosexuality is sinful—together with his plea for a five-year moratorium on the issue (even more if necessary) while he tries to decide whether Scripture is perspicuous enough for him to come to any conclusions on this issue—is a classic example of the kind of thing MacArthur is describing. Here’s a Christian leader who undermines the clarity and certainty of the Bible’s teaching with a postmodern and relativistic rationale. He stands against both Scripture and the almost universal convictions of 2,000 years of Christians (not merely evangelicals) in his willingness to accommodate postmodern humanism’s acceptance of homosexuality. McLaren is essentially saying Scripture is unclear and therefore it doesn’t matter if we give no answer for five years or longer on this vital moral question–about a practice no significant community of Christians (and relatively few non-Christians) ever hesitated to denounce as morally repugnant until it was suddenly subjected to the postmodern critique.
Perhaps you yourself probably don’t think Scripture is all that clear on that matter, and I expect your deconstruction of my answer will decry my utter failure to see or understand the nuances of McLaren’s attitude toward postmodernism, moral absolutes, and the perspicuity of Scripture.
Oh, well. I have to catch a plane home from London in the morning, so I don’t have time to argue with you about it in detail, except to say that I think it’s ironic and humorous that you seem to want MacArthur to recognize and acknowledge every nuance in the endlessly-nuanced trends and ideas circulating in the ECM, but you can’t seem to sift through the fairly simple nuances in the first three sentences of a fairly short excerpt from his book. Yet you seem keen to try to find a way to write him off completely before you even read the whole book.
Phil,
Just briefly, in my earlier comment in response to “jsb” in this thread (11:30am timestamp), I noted my harsh criticism of McLaren’s stance on homosexual practice, particularly with respect to his appearance at the “Open Door Community Church” in Arkansas recently. So I’m on record prior to your comments here in this thread indicating my rejection of his stance on this issue. I think it’s wrong.
But I also think it’s wrong to characterize McLaren’s wrong position as motivated by or the result of a conviction that “there is no truth”, or “truth doesn’t matter, because it’s not clear”. Remember, those the allegations by MacArthur I’m objecting to. And apparently you are offering McLaren’s position on homosexuality as your best (current) evidence of a ECM leader espousing the idea that either a) there is no truth, or b) the truth doesn’t matter because it isn’t clear.
Is that the case? That’s what you’re offering here as your basis for MacArthur’s assertion? I’m incredulous.
Do you suppose McLaren would agree that his position is a denial of the existence of truth, or that truth matters? I’d be quite surprised to hear McLaren affirm *that*. As I said, I think McLaren is clearly wrong on this issue. But it’s just as wrong — and I mean that to say it’s as dangerous and damaging — to say that McLaren is denying the existence of truth or its relevance by taking the stand he does.
I’ll email McLaren and ask him for a clarification. Would that help?
Even before that response might possibly arrive, I’ll hazard the guess would say that God’s truth regarding homosexuality *is* perfectly real and enormously relevant for Christianity. He just believes that truth is quite different from MacArthur’s understanding (and yours and mine). If that’s the case, then you *are* mischaracterizing the man by offering this as your evidence of his doctrine of denial of absolute truth, and its relevance.
As for humor and irony, I note that you are appealing to a *tradition* of “200 years Christianity” that declares homosexual behavior as sinful. I’m assuming this is a typo and you meant “2000 years”, as that makes more sense with the history I’m familiar with. Even so, it’s a bit odd for a Calvinist to appeal to a long tradition of doxis and praxis, isn’t it? Isn’t the Reformation a sharp break from a millenia of such consensus?
In any case, I don’t think this a matter of nuance, and splitting hairs. I’m suggesting that MacArthur is *way* off, at least insofar as he’s understood by me and in agreement with your example above. I don’t know about you specifically, but “Synod of Dordt” Calvinsts I know get quite exasperated when their are denounced for the *hyper-Calvinist* ideas. Many Calvinists I talk to would rather be cast as Arminians rather than hyper-Calvinists.
If you can understand the error, damage, and confusion that would be caused by a book titled “Why Phil Johnson’s Hyper-Calvinism Is All Wrong”, marketed to an audience inclined to defer heavily to whatever the author asserts, then you can see the problem that is (potentially) looming here. Maybe that’s a less offensive analogy than MLK Jr. and the Birchers.
The first order problem is accurate representation and understanding. And by this, I’m not demanding pedantry or nit-picky distinctions. I’m OK with a board, coarse-grained assessment. Only then will the second order problem — argument and debate on the merits — be possible.
That said, I hope you have a safe flight back home!
-Touchstone
Hi Cindy,
Thanks for asking. I’m already on the edge of Phil’s tolerance, so tell you what: I’ll put up a blog post in the next couple days detailing the whys and hows of where I am right now on that question. If you want to email me (touchstone at touchstoneproject.com, or via my blog), I will email you to let you know when the post is up. Or just check back there in a couple days.
I’m a software developer by trade, and couldn’t resist hacking my Wordpress install to the point I broke the database. As of this morning, I think it’s fixed, so I will be able to post on my blog again now, after a couple weeks of down-time, due to config file ham-handedness.
Apologies to Phil for bringing this off track.
-Touchstone
Actually, Touchstone, your argument has only the thin veneer of pedantry. Underneath, it looks like pure sand to me. Remember: your original complaint was that MacArthur was “inventing” a problem that doesn’t even exist. Let’s look sentence-by-sentence at the opening lines of what he actually wrote (the bit upon which your complaint is based):
MacArthur: “Many self-styled evangelicals today are openly questioning whether such a thing as truth even exists.”
That’s what you initially asked for documentation for. I gave it to you, in the form of data from Barna. You ignored it the first time, then claimed it wasn’t kind of documentation you were looking for. You said you’d settle for one quick example of a leader who is unsure or apathetic about the truth. But when I cited one such example, you were “incredulous” if I thought the one example I gave is the “best (current) evidence of a ECM leader espousing the idea that either a) there is no truth, or b) the truth doesn’t matter because it isn’t clear.”
Well, on the one hand, I’ve already urged you to read the whole case MacArthur makes before you accuse him of failing to substantiate his claims. You nevertheless challenged me to give you just one example. I did that, and if you want more now, you can always read MacArthur’s book.
On the other hand, the example I cited does indeed demonstrate that McLaren thinks the biblical condemnation of sodomy is 1) not clear, and 2) therefore not important enough to proclaim (at least for the next half-decade) to a decaying society increasingly enthralled by homosexuality.
Suddenly, however, the ground of your argument has changed again. Now you say you won’t concede that MacArthur has a point unless McLaren himself agrees with the phrasing. Since McLaren has already admitted that he prefers things to be fuzzy, ambiguous, and indefinite (“clarity is overrated”), I would of course expect him to reject the stark clarity with which MacArthur states any point (especially a point that’s critical of McLaren’s views). So, as I said at the outset, you are basically insisting on ground rules for the “conversation” that stack the deck against your critics from the get-go. And the kind of evidence you are demanding shifts with every answer you receive.
MacArthur: “Others suppose that even if truth does exist, we can’t be sure what it is”
…that’s practically the central message of every book Brian McLaren has ever written. It’s also the heart and soul of the postmodern spirit.
MacArthur: “so it can’t really matter much.”
This seems to be the part of the statement what you dispute the most. You suggest we ask McLaren if he thinks this is a fair assessment of his view. I’ve already explained why that’s a fruitless rejoinder. I’ll tell you what would be a better barometer of how much the truth really matters to evangelicals: Let’s see how far they will go in evacuating from their statements of faith the doctrines historic and biblical evangelicalism has always deemed essential.
For example, wake me up if evangelicals in either the UK or America ever reach a solid, clear consensus on the meaning of the atonement and the propitiatory aspect of the cross in response to the multiple challenges put in print by Chalke, McLaren, and others who now insist the reason for Christ’s death is not as clear as evangelicals have always believed it to be. When the idea of revealed truth and the clarity of God’s revelation matters enough to evangelicals to insist on agreement about the true meaning of the gospel rather than quietly setting the whole issue aside so that we can all can remain in fellowship with people who proclaim a fundamentally different gospel and deny the whole ground and basis of the doctrine of justification, then I might concede that the concern MacArthur has expressed here is overblown. In the meantime, there’s actually quite a long list of vital doctrines, starting with the very heart of the gospel message, that our spiritual forefathers would have been willing to die for, but many evangelicals no longer believe important enough to fight for.
MacArthur: “This type of thinking is epidemic, even among some of the evangelical movement’s most popular authors and spokespersons.”
I have already explained my understanding of what MacArthur is saying here: This type of thinking [i.e., various degrees of uncertainty and apathy about the truth] is epidemic, even among evangelical leaders. That of course expresses an opinion that is debatable, not necessarily a quantifiable statement of fact. That’s part of the thesis of MacArthur’s book, and he devotes some 250 pages to making the case. Having read MacArthur’s book, I think he makes the case pretty well. But having read your posts, I’m quite sure you will neither like nor agree with much of what he says. I also suspect your mind is quite made up on that already, and it’s why you seem so eager to declare the case settled before you even bother to read the book.
I’m literally writing this from the departure lounge at Heathrow. It’s not likely that I’ll be able to pursue it further when I get home to the desk full of work that awaits me. So if you like, you can have the last word.
phil – i am in london twice a month. let me know next time you are in town so i can buy you some weak coffee.
this conversation will be an interesting one. God give you wisdom and grace.
[...] Evangelical leaders suppose that truth doesn’t exist? Others suppose that the truth doesn’t matter? Admittedly, I have a limited view of the movement, but this is not at all the sense I’ve gotten from books and conversations (online and off) and my in-person experiences with emerging faith communities. I objected in the comments: [...]
[...] John MacArthur is posting a series on fighting for truth. Should we? [...]
Phil,
I put up some commentary on your replies on my blog ( and ).
I look forward to more excerpts and examples from the book.
-Touchstone
Phil –
You said, “…you are basically insisting on ground rules for the ‘conversation’ that stack the deck against your critics from the get-go. And the kind of evidence you are demanding shifts with every answer you receive.”
This IS the crux of the issue! It isn’t at all that these men desire serious theological dialogue because such a scholarly interchange would expose the “Oz”-like façade they rabidly protect, namely, that they are very dogmatic (certain, that is) about silencing anyone who traffics in propositional certainties. Today’s “uncertain” theologians spend hours feigning an alignment with orthodoxy so they will be invited to the important discussions, then when called upon to contribute, instead of demonstrating a biblical rationale for their views, they clutter the exchange with complaints that everyone else is being “too serious and assertive”. Having now created their own discussion group, they presumptuously invite us to their party, and then call us arrogant for bringing any strong convictions. Phil, your practice of engaging in serious theological argumentation pulls back the curtain on their light show, revealing that their theology is too rootless to stand up under scrutiny, their convictions too vacuous to speak boldly, and their integrity too opaque to admit it.
Jerry,
I was blessed by your words. Very fine indeed.
wow, that’s a lot of comments.
I know one pastor in my small town of Ulysses Kansas who considers himself into the Emergen Church Movement and calls himself a postmodernist. And his M.O. is that truth is uncertain and that very much affects his view of the Bible and innerancy, and what parts of the bible are true and are not true.
I’ve skimmed McLaren books and the questioning of absolute truth seems to be the reoccuring theme. In fact my experience is the opposite of touchstone, my experience is that everyone (whom i have personally met or read) questions objective truth and it spills over immediately into their veiw on the Bible.
I think that on the whole the movement is dangerous, despite a few good ideas.
The ECM gained momentum by their critique of so many evangelical churches that had resorted to touchy-feely “how to” messages. Of course, there are very few professing evangelicals who would say, “The truth doesn’t matter.” However, the core biblical truths of repentance, atonement, election, sanctification and mortification of sin are so rarely expounded that, in practice, these truths “don’t matter.” The problem IS wider than ECM.
Incidentally, check This post at Dan Kimball’s blog, posted a few days before the question of absolute truth was raised here. Dan’s post described some questions that arose about the ECM at a conference where he spoke recently. Note especially question number 2: “Do you believe in absolute truth?”
Dan’s commenters are people who are involved in or sympathetic to the ECM. Here’s the very first reply his post gets:
“I do believe in absolute truth. I just don’t think there’s any way we, as humans, can perceive it. It’s like shooting darts at a dartboard in the dark. We can all throw our thoughts out and then guess how accurate they are. But nobody can quite see who got a bullseye and who missed the mark completely. So in that sense, we’re all in the same boat. It doesn’t change the truth of who hit the center of the board, it jsut acknowledges that we’re all sort of ignorant when it comes down to it.”
And here’s another reply, further down, from “Jon”:
“If absolute truth exists does it matter if I believe in it?”
Or Mark, who hesitates to tell unbelievers, “The Bible says…” because, well—
“I actually do believe in absolute truth but that it really doesn’t matter to someone I don’t have a relationship with…”
The rest of the comment-thread that is likewise instructive. It currently ends with a comment from Mark Jaffrey, who has read McLaren and Bell but insists, “I have never found even a hint that fundamental Christian doctrines such as the existance of hell or the concept of absolute truth are being denied.”
What I would like to see is a definitive answer to Kimball’s question number 2 and a clear sorting out of all the ECM’s confusion and uneasiness over “absolute truth” from someone like Kimball or Driscoll. They’re the ones people invariably point to as exceptions to the rule—ECM leaders who are answering postmodernism rather than echoing it. The issue of “absolute truth” is quite obviously very much at the forefront of their movement’s concern. If these guys really do believe absolute truth exists and is both knowable and important, where, precisely, are they saying this with unvarnished clarity?
[...] Should We Fight for the Truth? [...]
I suppose it all depends on what we consider “truth.” I have no problem affirming with whatever certainty a finite human can muster that Jesus Christ IS truth. But I guess that’s where I end it; that’s the long and the short of it. Truth is a Person, and if I am moving closer to Truth, that is a good thing. As this happens, many things that I once held as truth fade away. To give you some examples in the theological realm, things that I held as provisional truths that have faded: “You must speak in tongues to be filled with the Holy Spirit,” or “War and patriotism are Christian duties.”
There. Now that wasn’t so bad, was it? I’m sure you agree with me on at least one of those matters! So while lowercase-t “truth” sustains us for the moment, only Jesus our Truth is an eternal energy. Honestly, I think that “propositional truth” alarmists need to pick another issue. Why not fight poverty with Gospel concern instead of fighting your sisters and brothers in Christ?
I’ll try to follow my own advice.
[...] Should We Fight for the Truth? [...]