Brian McLaren and the Clarity of Scripture (Part 3)
December 20th, 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.
3. McLaren and Propositional Truth
Third, McLaren dismisses propositional truth statements as a valid way for understanding the Bible. By denying the correspondence theory of truth, and instead embracing the approach of Lesslie Newbigin—that there really is no difference between facts and assumptions—McLaren and his colleagues are essentially driven to a place where no objective truth is possible (or at least possible to know definitively), and where any opinion is as good as any other.
McLaren is not the first to attempt this within evangelical circles. In his 1993 book, Revisioning Evangelical Theology, Stanley J. Grenz sets out a similar premise, in which “we as evangelicals not view theology merely as the restatement of a body of propositional truths” as we engage “in the quest for truth” (p. 79). Because any one understanding of doctrine may be incorrect, as a model of understanding reality, even when “informed by Scripture and by the mileposts of theological history—we must maintain a stance of openness to other models, being aware of the tentativeness and incompleteness of all such systems” (Ibid., p. 84). According to Grenz, propositional truth statements are the outmoded garments of modernism, which—like last year’s clothing styles—desperately need to be discarded.
The problem with evangelical propositionalism is its often under-developed understanding of how the cognitive dimension functions within the larger whole of revelation. Therefore evangelical theologians tend to misunderstand the social nature of theological discourse. More than its advocates have cared to admit, evangelical theology has been the captive of the orientation to the individual knower that has reigned over the Western mindset throughout the modern era. But this orientation is now beginning to lose its grip. Therefore, if our theology is to speak the biblical message in our contemporary situation, we must shed the cloak of modernity and reclaim the more profound community outlook in which the biblical people of God were rooted. (Ibid., p. 73)
While such statements may satisfy postmodern philosophers, they do little to promote any confidence in the clarity of Scripture. In fact, they do exactly the opposite—making room for a type of biblical interpretation in which anyone’s view is as good as anyone else’s. It is this subjectivism, practically speaking, that poses such a serious threat. As Al Mohler rightly observes:
The Emergent movement represents a significant challenge to biblical Christianity. Unwilling to affirm that the Bible contains propositional truths that form the framework for Christian belief, this movement argues that we can have Christian symbolism and substance without those thorny questions of truthfulness that have so vexed the modern mind. The worldview of postmodernism—complete with an epistemology that denies the possibility of or need for propositional truth—affords the movement an opportunity to hop, skip and jump throughout the Bible and the history of Christian thought in order to take whatever pieces they want from one theology and attach them, like doctrinal post-it notes, to whatever picture they would want to draw. (Online Source)
McLaren and his emergent associates deny allegations of relativism. But, as John Frame notes, “although McLaren renounces relativism…, it is not clear when and how he would fight for the truth over against error.” Practically speaking, then, his system embraces such doctrinal and hermeneutical subjectivism that, essentially, any view is accepted—as long as it shows tolerance to other views within the confines of dialogue. In order to keep the conversation going, this subjectivism begins with a denial that Scripture is clear, and that what it says is authoritative for faith and practice.
This is in keeping with its postmodern premise. The one essential, non-negotiable demand that postmodernism makes of everyone is this: No one is supposed to think he or she knows any objective truth. Because postmodernists often suggest that every opinion should be shown equal respect, it seems (on the surface) to be driven by a broad-minded concern for harmony and tolerance. It all sounds very charitable and altruistic. But what really underlies the postmodernist belief system is an utter intolerance for every worldview that makes any universal truth-claims—particularly biblical Christianity.
(Part 4 to come tomorrow)
Yes, a man-centered approach to reading the Scriptures, salvation, and Absolute Truth would logically be willing to sacrifice genuine truth for something more appealing to man.
But, A God-centered approach, to scriptures, to salvation, to Christian growth, and yes, absolute Truth, is willing to give up anything to give God glory and honor, even give up life itself.
Giving the truth in love is our imperitave. One of the better books I have read our role as being ambassador’s of Christ and proclaiming the Truth in love was “Tell The Truth” by Will Metzger.
“For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.
He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption. Therefore, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.” 1 Corinthians 1:18-30 ESV
Thanks Pastor for your work. I’m sure many, like me, wake early to read your posts about ECM, looking forward to release of the book - so tell Phil to hurry. I’ve not been as anxious to read a new book since “The Gospel According to Jesus,” as it takes a pastor, in my view, to objectively evaluate such trends - someone who can summarize from a perspective of multiple decades of errant challenge to the Word of God. And this from experience in the tranches of real life ministry and not simply from the library or classroom. I make some feeble attempts to read some by professional educators (seminary or university) on modern hermeneutic error and challenges to truth, but really although of some value, they remain too theoretical at times. Seems in this area, it is clearly time for both professors and pastors to boldly step forward and clear the house of evangelical tolerance with some square Biblical boundaries, least the New Hermeneutic errors deconstruct centuries of theological diologue for the current and future generations. I’m humbled and thankful to the Lord for your faithful example and willingness to step out on this issue that will no doubt cause serious criticism on many fronts. And I’m also thankful for the heritage of The Master’s College and Seminary, that takes the rare stand of fighting for the clarity and sufficiency of SCripture, amid the arena of such errant thinking. We applaud your determination during the days of our evangelical Downgrade.
Great article! Quoting from Mohler and Frame demonstrate that MacArthur is not just making this conflict up. Inevitably, postmoderns will try to wriggle out of these summaries, but these posts are so clarifying. They really help those of us who want to remain true to the Bible to be able to better interact with those trying to advance error.
It seems that many postmodern thinkers want to equate classic evangelical theology with modernism. As helpful as it is to refute postmodern methodology, it would be equally helpful to differentiate “biblical theology” from “modern theology.”
Very edifying. Studying someones error is good, when done in love, and when one is compelled to read, study, and search the Holy Word of God, in order to contend for the faith. And this is something for all the Lord’s saints to be doing, not just those who are rulers in the body of Christ, though, of course, their calling is to a higher degree, and one that exhorts, encourages, and admonishes the people of God.
Thanks for all the hard work.
Personally, I find this series useful and encouraging. But, of course, that means I’m thinking about it and I have questions.
In part 1, Dr. MacArthur presented the summary view of the reformation as the contrast between the Reformed view of Biblical perspicuity over against the Roman Catholic view of partim-partim or Scripture plus authority. That contrast he summarized as one which poses “anyone who can read can understand the Bible” vs. the idea that we can only understand the Bible through a magisterium or teaching authority.
I say that’s a fair enough contrast. Here’s my question: what is the difference between the “anyone who can read can understand the Bible” and the pomo view that everyone is entited to his interpretation — that is, how does the former explain or expect agreement between two readers of the same text if that text? Some might say that McLaren’s view is only on the skeptical end of the evangelical spectrum rather than a violation of the perspicuity principle, and I was wondering how the men at sfpulpit would answer that claim.
Frank,
Thanks for your comment. Good question.
I think there are two issues involved in your question–ability and authority.
1) Do people have the ability to understand the Scriptures on their own, using the normal rules of language?
The Reformers would say “yes”. (This, I believe, was the point of Luther’s response to Erasmus.)
2) Are people their own individual authority for determining the meaning of Scripture?
The Reformers would say “no.” Scripture is its own authority (and the only authority for faith and practice). Hence the reformed doctrine of sola Scriptura.
In contrast, when McLaren promotes ambiguity, he undercuts the individual reader’s confidence in his own ability to read and understand Scripture. On the flip side, when McLaren questions basic biblical doctrines (like eternal punishment), he openly challenges the authority of Scripture.
So, both in regards to ability and authority, I believe the Reformers would have been opposed to McLaren’s position.
Hope that helps,
NB
I think PoMo epistemology is just the logical conclusion of Modernistic epistemology. In other words, the distinction between the two is apparently artificial since both still are built upon a “foundationalist” rationalist epistemological framework. (so I think Grenz was wrong, in his “Beyond Foundationalism”–PoMo is just an extension of foundationalism)
In your mind (sfpulpit guys) what distinguishes the typical modernistic articulation of theology from the PoMo articulation–given their foundation in rationalist epistemology? In other words isn’t the reductionism of systematic theology [modernism] (i.e. propositional statements)reflective of the same “negative” approach that PoMo advocates are being honest about.
In Christ
Pastor MacArthur,
An intersting note concerns the attempt of the Emergents to attribute the idea of doctrinal certainty to modernity. This is bunk. The change toward certainty made in the Enlightenment was not universal. Rather, Christians had always relied on the doctrinal certainty found in Scriptures.
What changed is that suddenly the laws of nature were seen to be as certain and immutable as the Scriptures–Morris, Klein; Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge; Oxford University Press; 1985; page 95.
Very clever, but very deceptive on their part.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Phil Perkins,
Thanks for the insight.
Scott G.,
Welcome–run with it. What the ECM is saying on the subject is really a big fib and history refutes it. Check my site for a full article on it. This is a good answer to their claim. Spread it around for use by Christians.
Phil Perkins.
[…] Brian McLaren and the Clarity of Scripture (Part 3) […]