Brian McLaren and the Clarity of Scripture (Part 2)
December 19th, 2006
(By John MacArthur)
This article is adapted from the Fall issue of The Master’s Seminary Journal. The full text of this article can be read by obtaining a copy of the journal.
2. McLaren and Interpretive Complexity
Second, McLaren sees such incredible degrees of complexity, with even the most straightforward biblical teachings, that he hopelessly obscures what the Bible makes simple. One example, of many possible, would be his vacillation with regard to homosexuality. Though the issue is clear cut in Scripture (Gen. 19; Lev. 18:22; Rom. 1:26–27; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; cf. Gal. 5:19–21; Eph. 5:3–5; 1 Tim. 1:9, 10; Jude 7), McLaren remains unsure. He writes,
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. Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do. If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren’t sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn. (Online Source)
In other words, McLaren sees so much complexity—in both the biblical prohibition and the contemporary practice regarding homosexual behavior—that he is unable to respond definitively to the question of homosexuality. While such a blatant disregard for the straightforward teaching of Scripture hardly needs a response, Doug Wilson’s rebuttal seems particularly apropos.
If someone were to ask me whether the Bible teaches that Jesus went to Capernaum, I would say yes, it does. I would not be in agony over the question. It is not the most important question, but it is clear. If someone were to ask if the apostle Paul taught that homosexual behavior (both male and female forms) is the dead end result of idolatry, I would say yes again. No agony in the exegesis whatever. There is only agony if you are lusting after respect from the world, which they will not give to you unless you are busy making plenty of room for their lusts. And that is what the emergent movement is doing – this is really all about sex. And, conveniently enough, this has the added benefit of making room for evangelical lusts. Son of a gun. All that agony paid off. (Online source)
For McLaren, other areas of ambiguity (or even outright disregard for the straightforward reading of Scripture) include doctrines like eternal punishment, eternal life, biblical inerrancy, divine sovereignty, divine masculinity, any doctrinal “distinctive,” and any teaching that would exclude other denominations or even other religions from being enthusiastically embraced (cf. A Generous Orthodoxy, 19, 74, 81, 100, 113-14, 159-60). As he himself says, “The last thing I want is to get into nauseating arguments about why this or that form of theology (dispensational, covenant, charismatic, whatever) or methodology (cell church, megachurch, liturgical church, seeker church, blah, blah, blah) is right…” (Ibid., 19).
Even truth itself is presented as a concept too complicated for most people to understand.
[One] other issue is absolute truth. … The levels of complexity are so deep that a lot of people have no idea what they’re talking about. … Sometime the words absolute truth mean for people that they never have to give a second thought. I believe that to be a human being, although we can know truth, we are never in a position where we shouldn’t stand open to the possibility of correction. When people use the word truth, they can mean a lot of different things. … But when you use a word like this, you’re entering into a philosophical discussion that has been around since the time of the Greeks and is a very profound, difficult, sophisticated discussion. (Relevant Magazine interview, issue 21)
Ironically, in his most recent book, The Secret Message of Jesus, McLaren asserts that there are certain areas of doctrine on which he will speak clearly. He writes,
In one of my previous books, I said that clarity is sometimes overrated and that intrigue is correspondingly undervalued. But here I want to say—clearly—that it is tragic for anyone, especially anyone affiliated with the religion named after Jesus, not to be clear about what Jesus’ message actually was. (The Secret Message of Jesus, 7).
Throughout the rest of The Secret Message of Jesus, McLaren proceeds to present Jesus’ Kingdom message in a way that most closely aligns with the non-eschatological, social activism of twentieth century liberalism. But such an understanding hardly accounts for many of the clear New Testament statements as to the true essence of the gospel message (cf. 1 Cor. 15:3–4; 2 Cor. 5:17–21, for instance).
Moreover, by asserting that this “secret message” has just recently been discovered, McLaren is forced to deal with the question: “why hasn’t this reading arisen sooner?” (Ibid., 211). While a refutation of McLaren’s reasons (which are ultimately unconvincing) are outside the scope of this series, the following point remains: By overturning the historic understanding of Scripture with a new, secret message of Jesus, McLaren has again undermined the clarity of Scripture. Only a Bible that is impossibly ambiguous can fit in McLaren’s neo-gnostic model.
(Part 3 to come tomorrow)
well put; home run
‘Generous’ is of course ‘liberal’ done into modern English.
Seriously it is breaking my heart to see modern evangelicalism on the same downgrade as the evangelicalism of a century ago.
Last year I accidentally discovered Brian Mclaren. After a prominent Elder/Deacon asserted in a church publication that Universalism ( the belief that all will go to heaven, regardless of their relationship to Jesus Christ- which makes me wonder, whats the point then?)
Anyhoo, after his declaration, I was genuinely curious about where this was coming from. He and his wife were also teaching the college students Brian Mclaren. Now, to Mclarens credit, he wasnt primarily the source of universalism that the deacon/elder had gotten it from. Yet, Mclaren’s logic inevitably leads there becuase after all, we cant really know if hell exist, can we?
I spent a good 3 months researching him, and yes, that means listening to his interviews, reading his writings, and his critics. What Dr. Macarthur is saying here is predominantly what i ended up writing about to my pastor, almost verbatim. its not because Dr. Macarthur has somehow misinterpreted Mclaren, its because this is how Mclaren is.
As a pastor, how effectively can Mclaren protect his flock if he cannot discern sin?
Surely, if we love our family, our friends, and our Lord, will we not preach Christ crucified in the same manner as the Apostles?
“As a pastor, how effectively can Mclaren protect his flock if he cannot discern sin?”
~That’s an excellent and vital point applicable to all men who fill the role of pastor and shepherd. If the shepherd doesn’t know the lay of the land, the lion will surely get a meal of the flock.
AW Tozer in “Knowledge of the Holy” said, “The gravest question before the Church is always God Himself, and the most portentous fact about any man is not what he at a given time may say or do, but what he in his deep heart conceives God to be like.” At the root of MacLaren’s problem lies his misconception of who God is. His God is not capable of meaningful self-revelation.
–James
Good tone from the Pastor on sharing the deviation of Brian McLaren’s teachings of who Jesus Christ is.
Love that quote from Doug Wilson. Good food to take with you.
[…] Brian McLaren and the Clarity of Scripture (Part 2) […]
i’m not defending McLaren’s position on homosexuality, but it is worth pointing out that there was a time when the clarity of Scripture re: slavery was not in doubt (Eph. 6:5). Doug Wilson is consistent re: homosexuality and slavery. How about you?
Hi, Honest Questioner.
You are correct in comparing Scriptural clarity on the issue of slavery with Scriptural clarity on the issue of homosexuality.
I would add the issue of women wearing head coverings as well.
Read Paul’s question in I Corinthians 11:14. “Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?
“For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious aboaut this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.”
Where long hair and head coverings are not required among evangelicals and fundamentalists, how is Paul’s requirement explained away?
With an appeal to culture. They go to extra-biblical sources to explain why they don’t have to conform to Paul’s *clear* teaching. Paul, in this case, apparently was not able to discern between absolute truth and cultural truth in his teaching.
I have no problem with evangelicals and fundamentalists making an appeal to extra-biblical sources to explain why they can disregard a clear teaching of Paul. They are perfectly within their rights to do so. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Apparently.
This response is for honest questioner.
The issue of slavery was an issue of the day. Slavery was a form of debt repayment. Instead of a bank holding a note against somebody, the debtor worked for his loan underwriter. The obediance you speak of merely states that you have allowed yourself to go into debt. It is not the creditors fault that you lived beyond your means, thus you owed someone. Accept personal responsibility for your action and be glad you have a chance to work your debt off instead of just going to prison!
Verse 9 goes on to say that the slave’s master must also treat his debtors rightly.
Anything the bible says in black and white (or red) is ABSOLUTE truth. There is no grey area when God’s Word addresses it.
As for Whyte Stonne and your comment on head coverings, Paul was acknowledging man’s lustful cravings and was telling women that they have a resposibility to not distract the men from the God centered teachings during the group worship/teaching times. Paul say this as a distraction during his day, and I see it as an even bigger one today. How often do you see a teenage walking around with very little covered. It is a distraction when an adult does it, it is an abomonation when somebody allows their teenage daughter to walk around like that, especially in church.
The church ,ust maintain a high standard that we may be seen as an alternative to this ungodly world. How do we expect hurting lost souls to look to the church for truth when we look just like the world, just adding ‘Jesus loves you and has a great plan for your life’ to it.
People in the world know that it only brings pain. When we try to look like the world, all ’seekers’ see is pain wearing a mask. Sounds kind of like Satan in the Garden. ‘You have everything you need, but don’t you want a little bit more?’
Adam and Eve knew good and evil, because they started out with absolute good. We start out knowing only evil, and if we act like the world, we will never know anything but evil, and the destruction that God brings on evil!!!!