Brian McLaren and the Clarity of Scripture (Part 5)
December 22nd, 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.
5. McLaren and Conservative Evangelicals
Fifth, McLaren strongly criticizes those who believe that the Bible can be interpreted clearly. This criticism is most sharply leveled at Reformed conservatives—namely, those who are most committed to the clear teachings of Scripture, and the propositional truths found in the Bible.
For example, McLaren compares the five points of Calvinism to “cigarettes, the use of which often leads to a hard-to-break Protestant habit that is hazardous to spiritual health (and that makes the breath smell bad)” (A Generous Orthodoxy, 195), and describes systematic theologies as “conceptual cathedrals of proposition and argument” which demonstrate the “arrogant intellectualizing” of modern evangelicals (Ibid., 151-52). He denounces those who hold, with any conviction, to “a foundationalist epistemology,” biblical inerrancy, or the solas of the Reformation (cf. Ibid., 117, 159-60, 164, 198). Says McLaren, “The belief that truth is best understood by reducing it to a few fundamentals or a single ‘sola’ insight is, to me, at least questionable if not downright dangerous” (Ibid., 198).
Those who believe the Bible presents clear propositional truth statements, which can be believed and defended with certainty, are negatively described as those who “claim (overtly, covertly, or unconsciously) to have final orthodoxy nailed down, freeze-dried, and shrink-wrapped forever” (Ibid., 286) and who “claim to have the truth captured, stuffed, and mounted on the wall” (Ibid., 293). Near the beginning of A Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren admits:
. . . you should know that I am horribly unfair in this book, lacking all scholarly objectivity and evenhandedness. My own upbringing was way out on the end of one of the most conservative twigs of one of the most conservative branches of one of the most conservative limbs of Christianity, and I am far harder on conservative Protestant Christians who share that heritage than I am on anyone else. I’m sorry. I am consistently oversympathetic to Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, even dreaded liberals, while I keep elbowing my conservative brethren in the ribs in a most annoying—some would say ungenerous—way. I cannot even pretend to be objective or fair. (p. 35)
But the reason for the rub is much deeper than merely a reaction, by McLaren, to his upbringing. The problem is that the propositionalism of conservative, biblical Christianity is antithetical to, and incompatible with, McLaren’s post-conservative, ambiguous non-orthodoxy. The two are mutually exclusive.
Interestingly, McLaren also redefines humility as a willingness to accept doctrinal uncertainty, and then promotes it as the foremost virtue of his emergent worldview.
…what we need is not new sectarian terminology or new jargon or a new elitist clique, but rather a humble rediscovery of the simple, mysterious way of Jesus that can be embraced across the whole Christian horizon (and beyond). What we need is something lived, not just talked or written about. The last thing we need is a new group of proud, super protestant, hyper puritan, ultra restorationist reformers who say, “Only we’ve got it right!” and thereby damn everybody else to the bin of five minutes ago and the bucket of below-average mediocrity. … A generous orthodoxy, in contrast to the tense narrow, controlling, or critical orthodoxies of so much of Christian history, doesn’t take itself too seriously. It is humble; it doesn’t claim too much; it admits it walks with a limp. (Ibid., 19, 155)
Tolerance, then, is the new humility. Blind to the outrageous pride of condescendingly elevating oneself above the church’s greatest theologians and exegetes, McLaren insists that his position is humble. But those who are unwilling to tolerate other ideas, even when those ideas contradict the plain reading of Scripture, he denounces as arrogant, disrespectful, and insensitive (Ibid., 258-59). In this way, McLaren attempts to discredit those who boldly proclaim the clear message of Scripture. Instead of humbly acknowledging and submitting to the clarity of God’s revealed Word—which is true humility (Is. 66:1–2), McLaren redefines humility in order to undercut his detractors without having to address their arguments. Perhaps this is why more conservative pastors, even within the broader ECM, find McLaren’s approach so dangerous. In the words of Mark Driscoll:
Postmodernity is tough to pin down, though, because it changes the rules of hermeneutics but keeps the Bible. Some post-modern pastors keep the Bible but reduce it to a story lacking any authority over us, feeling free to play with the interpretation and meaning of particular texts. They do not believe in a singular truthful interpretation. They believe that the interpreter ultimately has authority over the text and can therefore use it as he or she pleases rather than submit to it.
While this dance may seem novel, it is as old as Eden. Satan first used this tactic on Adam and Eve, and later used it to tempt Jesus, by manipulating God’s Word to change its meaning. In previous generations, the fight was over the inerrancy of Scripture. Today, the fight is over the authority and meaning of Scripture. (The Radical Reformission, 168)
Concluding Remarks Regarding Brian McLaren
There will be some, no doubt, who find the above analysis unfair or unloving. But there is much more at stake, with Brian McLaren and his collaborators at Emergent, than mere semantics or slight philosophical disagreement. The purity of the gospel itself is at stake. If God’s Word cannot be understood with certainty then a saving comprehension of the gospel becomes an impossible task. But if the straightforward reading of Scripture is allowed to stand, then McLaren’s system of doctrinal subjectivity crashes to the ground. As D.A. Carson observes in Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church: “I have to say, as kindly but as forcefully as I can, that to my mind, if words mean anything, both McLaren and [Steve] Chalke [another ECM author] have largely abandoned the gospel” (p. 186).
For those who share “the love of the truth” (2 Thess. 2:10), and who are committed to “guard what has been entrusted” to them (1 Tim. 6:20), no room can be made for the philosophical agenda of Emergent. The apostle Paul reserved the harshest words for those who would undermine the gospel:
I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed! (Gal. 1:6–9)
And the Lord Himself warned His followers, “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matt. 7:15). After all, those who distort the Scriptures do so to their own destruction (2 Pet. 3:16).
The only reason to even consider McLaren today is because of his influence. I was had the opportunity to work with Brian in the early 90’s. When I found out his perspective on creationism and that he didn’t believe the Bible was inerrant, I had to decline the opportunity.
Now, 15 years later I see where this had led Brian. Starting points influence ending points. If a man is not standing on a solid foundation, his building will never rise too high.
I have worked with children (grade four) as an elementary school teacher for almost 15 years. The simplicity and clarity that a child can understand seems to be lost with adults who claim to be “educated.”
IMO, Brain is a classic example of someone educated under secular thinkers who comes to the Bible (for whatever motives he has) and tries to blend, merge & synthesize the cultural trends of thought into a meaningful way. Like so many who have been educated without a biblical foundation, when they come to Scripture, they have such deep presuppositions, it is extremely difficult to “first seek to understand, before being understood.”
For Brian and anyone else I simply share this–
Where is your fear of God? Are you not concerned with leading others astray? Do you not sit in bed at night crying out to God, “Lord, please, keep me from leading anyone from You in what I say, do and write.” Do you ever think that what you teach minimizes the work of Christ on the Cross? Ever? The Lord Jesus Christ was crucified! This leads me to the next question—Why did Jesus have to be crucified? Why did Jesus come to die?
Those who get emotional over some who seem to devalue truth is because of this relational dynamic. When you love Jesus and have come to value His suffering, this means something! When someone devalues someone I love, I will stand up for them. This is not an academic game. This is relationship in the fullest sense.
There is nothing more serious than wanting to share the gospel to a lost soul. I know I want to share a message of hope that is sound. Paul said it best in Romans 6:17:
“But thanks be to God, that you were the servants of sin but have obeyed from the heart unto that form of doctrine into which you have been delivered.”
The order is mind, heart, will.
Good points. McLaren’s language is thick with rhetoric “tense, narrow, controlling, critical…” which so easily drives an argument that cannot sustain itself.
And those reformed people, my how intellectually weak and devoid of grace they must be…I’d love to meet them if they exist outside of descriptions like this. He does himself no favours by launching these attacks on conservatives.
On a side note it is probably inaccurate to describe, as Carson has, Steve Chalke as an ECM author (even though on the atonement he has abandoned and attacked penal substitution in the way that McLaren has).
Guess I find it especially troubling that such a cardinal concept as “humility” is being redefined. It’s pursuit is hard enough when dealing with careful Bible interpretation and theological precision, as all of us would agree -knowledge too often puffs up when we think we’ve gained some in grasping a point. That is one of the challenges of seeking clarity. It would be corrupting in the worse way, if our rebuttal of ECM errors allowed pride to inflate – then although our correction was right, we are wrong. Let’s keep the pursuit of interpretive clarity, unmixed by the wrong attitude of pride. MacArthur I find does this as well as anyone I’ve read, i.e., a strong reasoned and helpful correction of error, put firmly but without the intrusion of prideful arrogance. Obviously to the pragmatic relativist, his rebuttal of error will be criticised as arrogant – but guess that goes with the hard task of bold confrontation.
Steve Chalke’s background as an English General Baptist makes him very different from Maclaren, but both seem to be going in the same direction. On the back of my copy of ‘The Lost Message of Jesus’ Maclaren is quoted as saying: “The Jesus introduced by Steve in these pages sounds like someone who can truly save us from our trouble.”
Ah, but what I need is a Saviour from my SIN. And Steve Chalke doesn’t offer me that.
Well, this has been quite an exercise of post-modern thinking on MacArthur’s part, these last few posts. I’m reminded of college, and my professor’s exercise with the class regarding textual deconstruction.
“What does this text mean to you?”
“I think the author meant so say…”
“No, what does it mean to *you*?”
MacArthur’s done a nice bit of deconstruction on McLaren here; my instructor would be proud. McLaren isn’t being given credit for what he intends to convey, but simply by what MacArthur *wants* it to mean, whatever serves MacArthur’s agenda most directly.
For example, MacArthur repreatedly has McLaren denying or dismissing *any* degree of certainty about Biblical interpretations. Deconstruction. If he valued the *intended* message, McLaren’s authoritative understanding of what McLaren was trying to convey, we’d not see this kind of distortion and misrepresentation.
McLaren is painted by MacArthur as hostile to the Bible itself. Deconstruction of McLaren worthy of Foucault. McLaren, right or wrong, is embracing Biblical authority, and critiquing conservative evangelicalism in ways he sees it as abusive of the text. We don’t have to agree with the truth of argument, but it’s simply self-serving misrepresentation to paint McLaren’s argument as an attack on scripture itself.
And in an ironic way, MacArthur has proven McLaren right. As noted in my previous comments on this series about McLaren, I think he’s just plain wrong on many issues, and *dangerously* wrong on some issues. But he’s got a very good point about people like John MacArthur. It’s one thing to take on McLaren’s arguments and say: this is what he says, and this is why it’s wrong, this is where his presuppositions are problematic… It’s quite another to have MacArthur tell us that a critique of fundamentalist reductionism is an attack on the Bible itself.
That’s where McLaren has a message MacArthur needs to hear, but apparently won’t. Phil Johnson, in his “what did McLaren get right” post, completely misses the substantive critique McLaren is offering, and tells us that yes, McLaren is right that the believers in the pews are could definitely be better Christians. It’s not the leadership doctrine, not the *epistemology* that’s at fault, it’s the little guy. Well that may be the case, but my reading of McLaren doesn’t fault the believer in the pew, or to the extent he does, he sees the problem as one stemming from a problem in the pulpit — real world pulpit or “blog pulpit”.
But does MacArthur address the critique on its own terms? No, he tries to pass of the critique as an attack on the Bible itself, conflating his ideas with the Bible itself. So we get a deconstructed McLaren here, reconstructed via MacArthur’s demonization; Look at McLaren, attacking the Bible! Danger!. It may *be* danger, but what’s being critiqued in the quotes MacArthur provides here is not the Bible, but MacArthur’s *approach* to it. The fact that MacArthur refuses, or is unable to understand that these are two distinct arguments.
Does the author’s intent matter? For someone like MacArthur, doing what he does for a living, I think he must say it does. How to account for MacArthur’s refusal to look what McLaren is saying right in the eye, then? Why the violence against McLaren’s real argument? Why hide behind the Bible, when the critique is aimed at your hermeneutic, and manifestly *not* at the Bible?
Of the available options, I think simply viewing this as an exercise in hard post-modern deconstruction on MacArthur’s part is the most charitable one. I think that’s less disturbing than the alternatives, which center around an exaltation of one’s own brain to the point that it can’t be distinguished from the Bible itself — an attack on one’s ideas is easily confused for an attack on the Bible itself in this case.
Rather, I’ll just take this to be MacArthur looking at McLaren’s words and deciding they mean whatever MacArthur wants them to mean.
-Touchstone
Thank you Pastor MacArthur and all those who contend for truth, here and elsewhere.
Funny thing…One of the ways we gain insight into Scripture is letting Scripture interpret Scripture (analogia scriptura). We let the broader context of Scripture help us to understand those diffuclt to understand passages, or test our understanding of a passage, verse, or proposition (i.e. If we confess our sin (then) He is faithful and just to forgive us our sin and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness–1 John 1:9) is to compare it to another passage.
When we apply the “Analogia McClarenia” we gain clarity to the mysteries of his thinking:
“The belief that truth is best understood by reducing it to a few fundamentals or a single ‘sola’ insight is, to me, at least questionable if not downright dangerous” (Generous Orthodoxy, page 198).
Oddly, I believe that Brian McClaren has affirmed the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed (A Generous Orthodoxy, page 28), which is tantamount to “The belief that truth is best understood by reducing it to a few fundamentals…” (Generous Orthodoxy, page 198).
McClaren can’t have it both ways. What he’s doing it making himself his own little god by rendering himself the final artiber of what is acceptable to himself…regrettably he does this publicly.
This would be laughable were it not for a couple like “Ernie” and “Mendy” here in Green Bay, who have turned and are turning away from Scripture and justifying their unbelief through the writings of agnostics (the plural form of the Greek word for “lacking knowledge”)like Brian McClaren and the fool hardy practice of “pastors/wolves” who recommended McClaren’s writings.
McClaren’s musings would be laughable if he wasn’t taken seriously and leading people astray.
I am grateful that we have men like John MacArthur, Don Carson, John Frame, and many others known and unknown who are willing to stand for and cling to what is true. God has spoken through His word, Scripture is clear, even to the simple.
Either McClaren is a liar, or the Holy Spirit is:
Psalm 19:7-14 7 The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; The testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 8 The precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes. 9 The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the LORD are true; they are righteous altogether. 10 They are more desirable than gold, yes, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the honeycomb. 11 Moreover, by them Your servant is warned; In keeping them there is great reward. 12 Who can discern his errors? Acquit me of hidden faults. 13 Also keep back Your servant from presumptuous sins; Let them not rule over me; Then I will be blameless, And I shall be acquitted of great transgression. 14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer.
Grace to all:
Keith Crosby
Green Bay, Wisconsin
2 Timothy 3:16-17
Touchstone,
With all due respect… McClaren has clearly spoken through his books. I know that he indicates that words have no meanings through the sum total of his writings; however, his blogs and his books and his sermonettes for Christianettes speak for themselves.
Don’t accuse John MaArthur of redefining McClaren. We assume the McClaren means what he says and says what he means…unless there’s some hidden gnostic supra-super-truth in his words and I don’t think there’s a film or a book on McClaren’s writings coming out like the DaVinci Code (that would require another blog and website).
Grace to You
Keith Crosby
2 Timothy 3:6-10 For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. 9 But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also. 10 Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance,
It’s so difficult in our day to stand for truth, isn’t it.
Humility is what counts. Truth is optional.
I read the book by D. A. Carson, ‘Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church.
Excellent read.
Wonderful quote from Mark Driscoll.
And John Mac has done a good work here as well.
“Study … the Word of truth.
But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
And their word will eat as does a cancer: …
Who concerning the truth have erred,” 2 Tim. 2:15-18
Keith Crosby,
Do you suppose McLaren, as the author of those words, would affirm MacArthur’s rendering of him as even *nominally* accurate?
If McLaren would dismiss this as a gross misrepresentation of his argument, would you still contend that MacArthur knows better than McLaren what he *really* intended to say?
Those are serious questions, not just rhetorical ones.
The really dismaying part of this is that I get the sense that if McLaren were to post here himself rejecting MacArthur’s representation of his argument as completely incorrect as to their content, many here would side with MacArthur’s representation, even over the claims of the author *himself* to the contrary. I also get the sense that MacArthur is aware of this and is exploiting it to maximum effect in this book.
Tell me if you honestly think McLaren would grant that while MacArthur disagrees with him, at least MacArthur has fairly represented what McLaren is really saying.
-Touchstone
To all,
With all this talk of humility, is it really humble to dismiss the propositions of Scripture on the basis of one’s own reason?
Is it humble to denounce those who believe God as arrogant, while relying on one’s own wisdom to deny the authority of God’s Word?
Huummm…maybe the shoe is on the other foot.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Touchstone,
I agree with Keith. McLaren is not as difficult to understand as you think. He’s been pretty clear and now he is being called to account for it.
You complain that MacArthur isn’t addressing McLaren’s real arguments. Your words: “It’s one thing to take on McLaren’s arguments and say: this is what he says, and this is why it’s wrong, this is where his presuppositions are problematic…”
My friend, John is did exactly that! So has D.A. Carson, Phil Johnson and Gary Gilley to name some others. They all make the same points about McLaren’s heresy.
I’ll say it plainly – McLaren is a false prophet by Biblical standards. He and his ECM buddies are very popular among the Christian college students I run into in my ministry. That fact alone makes it imperative that their views be exposed and refuted because they are leading some of these people to the broad road that ends in destruction (Titus 1:9).
You claim that John’s hermeneutic is flawed. You say McLaren is really critiquing this flawed hermeneutic prevalent among reformed evangelicals like John (and myself).
I agree with you on one point: McLaren does not like the historical-grammatical method of Bible interpretation. McLaren doesn’t clearly define what should replace it. So I ask you: please explain to us what is wrong with the HGM and how you would improve upon it.
Steve Lamm,
You’re right. I’ve read enough of McLaren to confidently say this:
He HATES anyone who has confidence in God’s word. That is his mission. He heaps insult on insult aimed at real believers.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Touchstone,
If you would like to defend McLaren, please do it in the same way as the authors noted. Let’s use Scripture as the arbiter. Is this unreasonable? There is nothing of Scripture in your comments, just philosophy. Deconstruction. Reductionism. Fine sounding words. But where is Scripture? Can it not be included in the argument? Can you not reference areas where Scripture supports McLaren supporting Scripture? That would strengthen your position. There would be no pride. None of McLaren’s tired rhetoric of “proud, super protestant, hyper puritan, ultra restorationist reformers”. Me thinks he protests too much. Maybe the difference is that you see Scripture has not having the final authority…
I think your arguments underscore the problem. You are not seeking truth, you are (over)reacting to someone using truth to determine truth. It is the only litmus test for believers and McLaren’s philosophical rants and your defense of them, undermine credibility.
I Cor 1:19-21 For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
If you don’t come to the same conclusions, at least please use the same methods to teach us the error.
I find it interesting that when John takes the ECMers to task and uses Scripture to back it up that he is accused of being polarizing, but when McLaren utters his disgust for those who hold to a conservative view of Scripture he is being humble. Reminds me of Isaiah 5:20-21, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness…Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!
Brian,
OK, fair enough. Here is the scripture I’m thinking of when I read MacArthur’s words concerning McLaren:
Deuteronomy 5:20 (NIV)
You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
I believe MacArthur is bearing false witness against McLaren. Would that be a scriptural basis for objecting, to you?
-Touchstone
Highland,
You are right, it is our sin that is the problem, but the ECM and Seekers have renamed it. Here are some of the new terms for sin: poor choice, bad decision, mistake, trouble, falling down, failure, problem, issue. This has been what the world has called sin to make it seem not as bad as it really is. I can do or have all of the above and not sin. Christ did not die for my problems, my poor choices, my mistakes or failures, He died for my sin(s). Again, in light of Isaiah 5:20-21, the wicked want to call sin other than what it really is so their sin will be hidden.
Having read and re-read Brian McLaren’s words he seems to be “of all men most pitiable.” Thank God for pastor/teachers like John MacArthur who keep us grounded in the Truth of God’s Word.
Touchstone,
That is not what Brian challenged you to produce. He asked you to “reference areas where Scripture supports McLaren supporting Scripture.” Since you seem to have such a handle on what McLaren meant in all those quotes produced by Dr. MacArthur, then by all means share what he did mean. I would be very interested to see how Dr. MacArthur took him out of context or misrepresented the true intentions of his seemingly very clear words. Show us this massive “deconstruction” project.
Steve Lamm,
As I understand McLaren, the GMH is not inherently a problem. In fact, I would say McLaren regards it as useful tool. But like any tool, it’s prone to misuse. It’s not a panacea, an oracular process that provides — deterministically — the desired level of clarity wherever you point it.
So, MacArthur might tell you McLaren is rejecting the GMH, but I’m suggesting that he’s doing no such thing. Rather he’s advancing a framework where the GMH is less exhaustive epistemically than it is under MacArthur’s framework. That’s manifestly *not* a denial of the authority or absolute truth of scripture. Instead it’s an assessment of GMH’s more humble epistemic value.
If the scriptures are living and active in a dynamic way as I believe it be (based on Heb 4:12 among other things), then I’d agree for my own part that GMH is a powerful and useful tool, but limited in it’s scope in terms of epistemology; it’s part of the picture, but only part.
The last, and important feature of McLaren’s critique of GMH is actually a part of GMH itself. I think McLaren deserves credit for identifying a large blind spot in MacArthur and similar proponents of his hermeneutic; they rely on GMH extremely heavily, yet do not understand their own modernist biases and distortive filters they bring to the table. John MacArthur is a product of his culture, as am I, and everyone else, and McLaren understands that this has fundamental ramifications on the use of GMH itself.
For example, the predicate for GMH — the assumption that Biblical truth is exhaustively derived as a propositional set, or as the output of systematic theology — is an artifact of MacArthur’s (post-)Enlightenment intellectual conditioning. MacArthur’s presuppositions about what to expect from GMH and how epistemic confidence is established for it is quite thoroughly modernist (and note, I know Phil Johnson in particular is prone to reading “modernist” as meaning “theologically modernist”; that’s not my meaning here. Specifically, I’m pointing at philosophical modernism, which is something else).
I understand the frustrations. What do you mean my assumptions are modernist? The Bible must yield modernist clarity or it’s not the Bible! I think sentiments like that are a modernist novelty in and of themselves. In my readings of ECF right up to the days of the Reformation and the Enlightenment, I don’t see those presuppositions as “historically correct”. Or, I don’t get the sense that those that came before McLaren and MacArthur across the 1500 years prior to Luther approached the Bible with the same epistemic assumptions.
I hope that helps. I can expand, but that’s my understanding of McLaren’s position on GMH in a nutshell.
-Touchstone
Touchstone said: “For example, the predicate for GMH — the assumption that Biblical truth is exhaustively derived as a propositional set, or as the output of systematic theology — is an artifact of MacArthur’s (post-)Enlightenment intellectual conditioning.”
Your understanding of the GHM is seriously flawed! You misrepresent it and then proceed to criticize it. Can you point to some evangelical scholars who assert the belief that “Biblical truth is exhaustively derived as a propositional set, or as the output of systematic theology”?
Please answer the question I asked: “explain to us what is wrong with the HGM and how you would improve upon it.”
Let me ask it another way: please tell us how to properly interpret Scripture.
Steve Lamm,
Here’s what I’ve found works best – a consilience of:
1. Straightforward reading — informed by GHM virtues (historical context, grammatical cues, milieu of the author and ricipients, etc.)
2. The history of Biblical interpretation, with emphasis on the catholic (small ‘c’) consensus across all times and places.
3. Cultural/epistemological self-awareness — honesty about my own biases I bring to the text as a product of my own culture context.
4. Reason and experience — including demonstrable knowledge from science.
5. The wisdom of the larger extant church.
6. Last by not least(!), the mediating influence of the Holy Spirit in illuminating scripture.
This is a different framework than MacArthur advances, but to what extent it matches McLaren’s I couldn’t say. I do believe he does draw on all of these to some extent.
But, as to your original question, how do I improve the GHM, I think I could say on one level that I *don’t* make attempts to do that, per se. Rather, I propose a level of humility and care in deciding how reliability my propositional productions are. Given the above, I guess I have to stress that that is completely distinct from being cautious about the absolute truth of the Bible — that I enthusiastically maintain. Rather, I advocate a conservative approach is in order to prevent train-wrecks that hurt and discredit the Gospel like young earth timelines or fixed predictions of Christ’s return date, or certainty to the point of schism over the fine points of the mechanics of justification, etc.
-Touchstone
Touchstone,
I’m so confused as to your views on McLaren. It seems like you actually agree with Dr. MacArthur at some points, but only disagree with his understanding of McLaren – you make it sound like they agree a lot!
I’m sure this is not the case and though I am a huge fan of Dr. MacArthur, he could be wrong, but my goodness he is quoting somethings from McLaren that I can’t believe any God fearing Christian would say. I mean how out of context could those quotes be? Seriously…
As Keith Crosby said you can’t have it both ways and as I have mentioned before you (and McLaren) are as predictable as we are [in my challenge to everybody to guess your view on evolution]. If you’re sick of Dr. MacArthur and his theology/hermeneutic as being “an artifact of MacArthur’s (post-)Enlightenment intellectual conditioning,” than you should see your own theology and hermeneutic as a recent artifact of postmodern intellectual conditioning.
Phil, you mentioned people who “dismiss the propositions of Scripture on the basis of one’s own reason”.
Every theological system that has any history and brain-power behind it dismisses propositions of Scripture based on . . . reason.”
Dispensationalists dismiss passages that deal with the Holy Spirit, supernatural giftings, etc.
Wesleyans dismiss the Calvinist’s Bible-based “distinctives.”
Calvinists dismiss the Wesleyan’s Bible-based “distinctives.”
Preterists and futurists dismiss the Biblical underpinnings of each other’s systems.
Every systematic theology MUST explain away those clusters of verses and passages which run counter to its tenets. MUST, if it is maintain and justify its existence divided from other systems and denominations.
“Beware of those who cause divisions among you.”
I would amend that to read, “cause, preserve and justify” divisions among you.
I would say that both Modernist and Postmodern approaches are rooted in the same rationalist epistemic foundation. In other words, McClaren, has’nt tapped into anything “new”.
Both approaches are very confident in man’s autonomous “reason” (a la Cartesianism cogito ergo sum), and its ability to discern the nub, essence, or kernel of the “husk” of truth, and thus “reduce” it to “propostions” (Modern) or “non-propositions” (PoMo). You’ll notice both frameworks are inter-related at an anthropological/ontological level (i.e. confidence, or “suspicion of conficence”)–man’s autonomous reason (uberman) is the final arbiter, not God’s Word. So while McClaren asserts that he is suspicious of people like MacArthur, and thier “certainty”; McClaren functions with the same “certainty” about his “uncertainty” about certainty (which anyone who has had any training in logic recognizes this as petitio principii or question begging). I think both approaches are founded upon a wrong anthropology (elevation of man’s intellect/volition as the defining feature of man vs. viewing the affections/heart [motive] as the defining component of man–which God is concerned with (our motives–follow David’s I Sam 16:7, etc.).
The consquence is viewing truth as a substance or quality (either for Modernists or PoMos); and failing to recognize that truth is “relational” by ontology. In other words, Jesus is the truth (cf. Jn 14:6), the trinitarian God is truth (Jn 17). Truth is dynamic and relational, if in fact truth is personified and framed by God’s nature (which it is). So I don’t believe we should view truth, relative to God, as mathematically “certain”; but rather as “relationally secure”, with “touchstones”
in place (i.e. God’s nature revealed through His Word), that set the trajectory of our growth in truth, within a framework that is epistemically “stable and secure” given the ontological foundation of “truth”, which namely is–God.
Truth isn’t less than propositions, it is more than (God used propositional lit. [discourse], narrative and poetry [non-propositional--see speech-act-theory] to reveal Himself to us–albeit framed by His relational nature).
I think both Modernistic and PoMo approaches are two sides of the same coin. It’s not either/or (proposition or non-proposition–its both/and). Consequently, both MacArthur and McClaren operate out of the same epistemological framework; one emphasizing truth as propositional and the other non-propositional–both springing from the same rationalist anthropological framework.
John,
I’m trying to be as clear as I can.
I don’t think there’s nearly as much difference theologically between MacArthur and McLaren as MacArthur is claiming here. For example, here’s a quote from McLaren’s website, in response to a questioner who asks “Do you believe the bible is the inerrant word of God?”:
Answer: Thanks for your note, and your concern. About your last question, I believe the Bible is uniquely authoritative for Christians. Nearly every Sunday for over twenty years I have preached sermons at my church (and elsewhere) that are deeply rooted in Scripture. Some of them are available at the Cedar Ridge website. This is probably the best answer to your question. I intentionally avoid including a lot of Biblical references in my writing because the method of “proof-texting” is terribly problematic. Yes – it can show the Biblical roots beneath a statement, but it also can be used to give the appearance that a statement is supported by Biblical authority when it isn’t. I have a chapter on my view of Scripture in “A Generous Orthodoxy.” Perhaps it would be reassuring to you. But again, my many years of preaching would be the best answer to your question, as would my daily life, which – though far from perfect – is lived in the light of Scripture.
I think two things should be evident just from this quote. First, I see this as strongly affirming the authority of scripture (it’s “uniquely authoritative”, and his life is lived by in according to its principles). But at the same time, he’s making a conscious effort to distance himself not from scripture, but from a hermeneutic that he sees as producing abuses of scripture.
Secondly, he stressed the importance of his actions, his history as the authoritative answer to the question. Again, I believe this is a conscious connection on McLaren’s part, stressing the relationship between doxis and praxis. It’s not meaningful to simply say “You bet!” in answer to the question, if your life — and in this case, the exhortations you’ve offered over many years from the pulpit — doesn’t provide witness to that answer.
So, here, I understand McLaren to affirm the question but to take issue with the presumptions built into the question. Yes, the Bible is authoritative — uniquely so — but it’s a low view of scripture that reduces that authority to a simple “Yes/no”. The real answer as to what authority a man assigns to scripture is the sum of his actions, and I applaud McLaren for keeping this in view. I believe he’s gently suggesting that the question — or at least the format of the answer — is misgiven. Anyone can say “Absolutely” to Biblical authority as a proposition on the Sunday School teacher’s application questionnaire. But the *real* answer isn’t on the sheet. The real answer is told in the applicant’s life.
So we have a core agreement — scripture is authoritative — but a significant disagreement about separating doxis and praxis. Propositional theology, detached from a man’s action’s is prone to fraud, hypocrisy and abuse. A man’s life may not provide an encouraging answer on all fronts — certainly not my own — but it’s an honest answer to the question, whereas “Yes-or-no” really is a terribly crude and misleading test.
That leaves the abstract ideal. Isn’t it good to affirm the authority of scripture as an abstract proposition? I think it is, and I think McLaren would say yes, but with reservations. It’s this abstraction that has become a defining characteristic of evangelical Christianity, and has produced a disconnect between the “affirmed theology” of evangelical Christian and the “practical theology” of same that is, well, Biblical in its proportions.
Phil Johnson in this series admits that Christians need to do better. But McLaren, as signaled here, isn’t blaming Joe Christian directly (or at least solely) for this disconnect. He’s suggesting that the leadership — the Protestant priesthood — has done the church a disservice in its fealty to abstract philosophy divorced from practice. Focusing on a “propositional answer” over against a “demonstrated answer” from the actions, thoughts and attitudes of the person being queried is in large part responsible for the pandemic hypocrisy and inert stance of the church.
So is that a huge gap, or a minor difference? I think it’s a pretty significant gap. But ultimately, these are very important issues, that are complex on multiple levels. MacArthur has done a great disservice to the issue in avoiding and mischaracterizing the issues Brian brings to the table. I’m quite chagrined with McLaren on the issue of homosexuality, and think he’s clearly in the wrong. I’m no McLaren sycophant.
But I’m not McLaren demonizer either. There are issues of import and substance that McLaren has for the church to address, with more substance than MacArthur’s “he denies any degree of certainty about any doctrine” and Johnson’s “the little guys in the pew need to shape up”.
-Touchstone
After reading McLaren and MacArthur for years, as well as others involved, and now this series, I have to say that the McLaren defenders have not done well. It is too late in the game to say that McLaren is not being understood. That’s a word game, one of several played by the McLaren-ites (I use this term because perhaps not all ECM’s fall into this category. IOW, there is probably a sorting out being done right now, e.g. Driscoll, which indicates McLaren may already be drifting to marginalization, if he wasn’t already been there).
In reading all of the material, discussing it with friends (emergent leaders included), and assessing it to this point, I have to say MacArthur has truly nailed it here. McLaren will never again, with credibility, be able to deny or claim unfair treatment. He will be seen as an artful dodger and continue to drift further to the margins.
It is now up to others in ECM to make a better case, and perhaps to drop their unloving and proud stance toward conservatives and admit they’ve gone wrong.
Ultimately, the people themselves will speak. The “new kind” of Christianity, without solid foundation in truth, will not heal the human heart and soul. There will be pockets left, but this is no movement. The “conversation” will be carried on within smaller and smaller communities.
Which is not to discount what McLaren and other emergents do get right. There are valid criticisms of evangelicalism to be made, and we must reform. That’s happening now, but not by abandoning foundational truth.
Thanks for this series, Dr. MacArthur. I’m looking forward to the book.
“There are valid criticisms …. we must reform”
Amen. We need to always give credit where credit is due.
” … but not abandoning foundational truth.”
Amen, and amen! What a blessing it is to be fearful of doing this.
I pray that people who have no fear of watering down the truth, would be granted a holy fear, and that all genuine hearts that have been renewed by the Holy Spirit would never lose the fear of the Lord, (which isn’t to be confused with being afraid of the Lord).
Grace and blessings.
It absolutely amazes me how those who claim the name of Christ have so quickly abandoned Him!
My concern here is *both* for those in the McLaren camp and MacArthur camp (excuse any baggage that comes with using the term, “camp” here. It’s just a means to communicate).
For those in the McLaren camp, I bring you back to the Cross of Christ and the person of Jesus. Does all your “conversation” about hermeneutics and epistemology lead you to honor the work of Christ on the Cross? This is the bottom line. Why did Jesus come to die? Your answer to this will tell me and everyone else who you really are.
To those in the MacArthur camp, I ask you this—Why have you so quickly abandoned the simplicity of the gospel and relational aspect of Jesus? Because someone claims to be a preacher and Christian does not mean a darn thing. They must still stand under the same “truth” as anyone else. The truth here is—Why did Jesus come to die? Stay away from rabbit trail arguments and defenses. Come back to the gospel and the Cross!
My point:
Why was Jesus Christ crucified? Why did He suffer so much? Who sent Him to His death? If we do not have common ground on these central and foundational issues, we do not have “conversation” at all. What we have is a need to share the gospel! To rabbit trail into hermeneutical and epistemological arguments (although very interesting to people like myself) is folly. We must focus on foundational truths!
I must say this. There is another message that both camps offer to one another. The MacArthur camp offers very strong propositional truths. In simple terms, there are few who communicate what the Bible says any better. John Piper comes to mind and a few others who uphold what the Bible says in a very good manner.
The Emergent camp offers what the Charismatic and Seeker-Sentivie camps tried to do, and that is focus on a more relational aspect of Christianity—the “one another’s and love thy neighbor.”. This could be said in a better way, but I hope it communicates. In effort to do so, all these camps have embraced a “sloppy theology” and have become too anthropocentric in there thinking. The MacArthur camp is very theocentric in their thinking.
Both are in need of balance! There is a head/heart dichotomy that needs to be dealt with.
Those who are preoccupied with theologically dotting every doctirnal i and crossing every doctrinal t can be in error of truncating spiritual transformation to mere information transfer. Spiritual change and activity certainly involve propositions, but they also transcend them. In this sense, there is an overemphasis on a modern Cartesian epistemology with a strong influence from Descartes.
Propositional knowledge is quantifiable and easily measurable, but it’s far more difficult to evaluate someone on how they are doing in a father/son relationship. Information transfer measurement doesn’t capture how a father and son relate to one another or a husband and wife. Reality in this context cannot be readily captured in lexical symbols.
Get the idea here?
Those in the MacArthur camp I think can be accused of being far too preoccupied with doctrinal accuarcy over the “one another’s” found in Scripture. The Emerger’s confront this, and rightly so. Spiritual formation isn’t just propositional but also must occur in relational contexts. The Emerger’s and others need to get their thoeology back in order. It starts with mind, but the truth must penetrate the heart in order for correct actions (will) to take place. (Rom 6:17)
Whyte Stonne and Touchstone,
You’re missing the point. There are some areas of Scripture that are harder to understand than others. However, Scripture, like say, Calculus, is clear and understandable if someone is willing to put in the time. Putting together a 50 piece puzzle is more difficult than a 5000 piece puzzle (I recognize here that any analogy pressed too far will eventually fall short of its intended goal). But the bottom line is that Scripture is clear, truth is knowable, and the principles of God’s word are understandable with precision.
Whitfield (a calvinist/Romans 9ist) disagreed with Wesley on the details of election but not the clarity of the Scriptures. They eached preached that Christ was the only way, that eternal life was in and through Him alone.
McClaren and others of his stripe reject the clarity of Scripture. McClaren isn’t sure of much except that he “knows” that Scripture isn’t clear (take his non-stand on homosexuality). McClaren largely dismisses propositioal truth and nonsensically so (undermining his own misconceptions within his own writings):
“The belief that truth is best understood by reducing it to a few fundamentals or a single ‘sola’ insight is, to me, at least questionable if not downright dangerous” (Generous Orthodoxy, page 198).
And yet he affirms the Creeds which reduce the Scriptures to propositional truth and distill down concepts from the pages of Scripture to the “truth statements” of the Creeds.
What this demonstrates (by their fruit you will know them) as that he has a submission problem–he will accept what he will accept but is not willing to go where Scripture leads him…choosing instead to say “well… how can we be certain what the meaning of is really is…”
He should spend some time contemplating John 14:6, 1 John 1:9…
But really, who do you say Jesus is? Is He God? Was His resurrection literal or physical or maybe just a spiritual truth but not a fact? When we read he rose in 3 days, or that Lazarus was in the tomb for 4 days, or that Joshua and the people of Israel marched around the walls of Jericho’s 7 days… maybe that was 7 ages, 7 epochs, or 7 billion years?
After all, how can we know what Scripture means? Friends, you can read into the text all you want to…but words have meaning. We understand their meaning from their context and usage through their relationships to one another.
Once you toss this out for the fishbowl lens of experience or so-called “natural revelation” you are elevating our experiences from our finite fishbowl worlds over the special revelation of an all wise, omnipotent, omniscient God–the only God.
Once again, McClaren’s point of the non-clarity of Scripture–the certainty of nothing–assumes that God lacks sufficient competency, ability, intellect, and omniscience to know that what He put in writing for us would not be understandable. The non-clarity of Scripture means that God failed to anticipate how we would devolve in our abilities in language, or how much smarter we would be…so smart that we cannot understand with clarity what others so clearly grasped before us.
McClaren’s position non-clarity, other than being an exercise is narcissitic arogance, makes God an unjust incompetent who holds mankind accountable in terms of obedience to His un-understandable word.
But Wesley, Calvin, Whitfield, and Finney understood what sin was, that homosexuality is sin, and that those who die without Christ perish, since Christ is the only way (Acts 4:12; John 3:36; 1 John 1:9; John 14:6). They differed, yes…
But McClaren can’t be certain about much of anything. Of course, that lack of certainty permits much lattitude to “do as one feels” or as we read in Judges for every man to do what is right in his own sight…
I think that’s the larger issue on denying the clarity of Scripture. If you don’t find the special revelation of God’s word “compelling” then perhaps there’s a larger issue with which to wrestle…spending a little time in Colossians 3, which speaks to biblical change might be of service to McClaren and others.
Grace to You
Keith Crosby
Green Bay
I was sharing with a friend of mine today some of what I have read. He game me a quote by Jeremiah Burroughs that I wanted to share.
“The reason men worship God in a casual way is because they do not see God in His Glory. If a man has ever had Isaiah’s vision of the Holiness of God, he would be changed in an instant. But until men have seen God as He truly is they will be forever guilty of the very same rebuke that God gave to the wicked in Psalms 50:21
“You thought I was just like you.”
Leonard Ravenhill said. “The more and longer I live, the more I find I don’t know.”
May God bless in wisdom and knowledge so that we may see Him as He is and share that vision with others.
Eddie
Whyte Stonne,
You said, “Every theological system that has any history and brain-power behind it dismisses propositions of Scripture based on . . . reason.”
Five problems with that. First, whether or not someone has sinned in the past that is not an excuse for McLaren’s sin today.
Second, the honest thing to do is to recognize that all the systems you mention claimed (and I would guess actually tried) to integrate the Scripture, not deny its authority.
Third, you are casting aspersions on folks that probably did not wish to dismiss Scripture, but wanted to obey it. You are mischaractizing at least some, if not all, these men.
Fourth, even if you’re right tand they violated Scripture (and some certainly did so) their claims were far different epistemologically. While theologian X may misunderstand or be unaware of a certain biblical principle or passage, McLaren is denying it’s perspicuity to give us all we need in Christ. In so doing he is replacing it as his sole authority and inserting his own thoughts, on purpose. That is a far cry from simply misunderstanding.
Fifth, McLaren has been dishonest in the extreme. He sells his books to individuals under the guise of being a Christian. Wesley and Calvin may have disagreed, but neither told people not to be concerned about being right Scripturally or that the Bible is not clear on very specific things, such as the sinfulness of sodomy.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
“I am consistently oversympathetic to Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, even dreaded liberals, while I keep elbowing my conservative brethren in the ribs in a most annoying—some would say ungenerous—way” – Brian McLaren
Roman Catholics? Eastern Orthodox?
Is he telling us that he is oversympathetic to people who worship mary or deny faith through Christ alone? Or even oversympathetic to those “dreaded liberals”? Obviously you can answer this.
This man sits here trying to be “one body” with false teachers, and attacking the faithful men who uphold the truth in this post-modern world, where there is supposedly no such thing as truth. Prasie be to God for keeping such men faithful to carefully examine everything(2 Thess. 5:21) and not participate in their unfruitful deeds of darkness but exposing them(Eph. 5:11). These men long for true unity in the body of Christ, weeding out the wolves who want to attack the sheep. They are protecting the church from doctrines of demons.Yet,people such as Touchstone like to sympathize with McLaren in saying “Unity! Don’t beileve in those precious doctrines which our forefathers upheld, just let them go and except these demonic doctrines.”
Unity will not come if the church shakes hands with the devil.
Joe Ventura,
While your attempt to bring peace is laudable, it is both misplaced and wrong in its essence.
It is misplaced because you do not understand the depth of the differences between those that hold to the authority of the Bible and those like McLaren.
It is wrong in that you do not grasp the nature of the subject. Let me explain:
You said, “If we do not have common ground on these central and foundational issues, we do not have “conversation” at all.”
Well, Joe, who needs conversation? Conversation is for equals. God is not your equal and when His prophet speaks or writes it is our job to shut up, listen, and obey. This same is true in every field of human knowlege. For instance, in math class there is no conversation. The teacher simply proclaims and explains. The role of the students is to be students, not equal participants. In short, proclamation, not conversation, is the method of the gospel.
Then you went on to say, “To rabbit trail into hermeneutical and epistemological arguments (although very interesting to people like myself) is folly. We must focus on foundational truths!”
What is more foundational than hermeneutics? Well, one good answer is epistemology. First, you gain an epistemology, then you can begin to grasp the world around you. Then you can learn to read or hear the Word of God, which you interpret–hermeneutics.
The gospel is not foundational in regard to epistemology. Epistemology is foundational to the gospel, else why would you believe the gospel? (Note: God has instilled in us a correspondence type of epistemology at birth, but the Emergent wishes us to abandon it. Look for an upcoming post on epistemology on my site.)
So your call to forget hermeneutics and epistemology in lieu of the gospel is nonsense, since the gospel is in written form for Christians to read and study. And the Bible assumes a common sense correspondence epistemology.
Hoping you understand this and that you’ll forgive my frankness for brevity,
Phil Perkins.
I once had a disagreement with a conservarive fundametalist pastor on the interpretation of a scripture. When I explained why I thought it should be interpreted in a certain way, his response was: “Well, Daniel, there are two ways to see this. There is your way, and then there is the Lords way.”
McArthur comes across just as self glorifying and blind to his own prejudices.
Pastor Astor,
If MacArthur “comes across” like a poached egg, what is that to you? See Matthew 11 and Luke 7.
Criticisms of style are not countenanced in Scripture as substantive. They are usually given as examples of the ramblings of evil people.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
“McArthur comes acros as self glorifying”
I think that remark fits clearly with our Lord’s charge:
“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with what judgement you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you allot, it shall be measured to you again. ….
Judge not, and you shall not be judged: condemn not, and you shall not be condemned: forgive, and you shall be forgiven.” Matt 7:1-2; luke 6:37
Surely we need to judge other’s teachings, and have others judge our teachings, but not in the manner you have judged John McArthur.
I find it highly amusing that you accuse me of being judging. Have you read the article? Have you read the other articles? At least I have not kicked the Lord out of the judgement seat. I have made no accusation of false prophecy, put into question someones salvation, hinted at the snake in the garden, or anything like that, that McArthur seems to do habitually. “Judge not”… Yep, right back at you! And Phil, I am evil, am I? Adding “In Christ” to an insult doesn´t make it any better.
“Have you read the other articles?”
Yes.
Phil…
Did you read my first post here?
You said,
“While your attempt to bring peace is laudable, it is both misplaced and wrong in its essence. It is misplaced because you do not understand the depth of the differences between those that hold to the authority of the Bible and those like McLaren.”
My intention wasn’t to be a “both/and” or “to bring peace” as you make it sound. I think I understand what you are saying and I will say the “conversation” here has great limitations. In fact, it perfectly illustrates the idea that written communication is limited (and sometimes greatly) outside the realm of 1:1 or face-to-face.
I agree, conversation must have definitions and all that hermeneutics and epistemology offer. The rule of hermeneutics is–context, context, context. I think some of this was lost in your response to me. Again, there are limitations with the “post to post” style of relating.
In a nutshell (and I risk the limitations of this style of communication) I am simply taking a presuppositional position, which is not just for apologetics, it is for all forms of Christian truth communication.
I guess I didn’t make my point clear in the above post. I tried to say that hermeneutics and epistemology applied to various forms of Christian issues, whatever they might be, is missing the point if we are not first on the same page on who Christ is and why He came to die. I have seen this happen too many times, that being Christians gather to discuss issues *assuming* they have common ground in what the gospel is and all it entails (why Jesus came to die) when in fact they do not. This will in inevitably come out down the line. Sometimes it’s missed altogether. The starting point should be finding common ground on what the gospel is in order to build wisely. This of course might bring up the fact that one who thinks they are a believer is indeed not one at all.
Let me say it another way, would you discuss whether it is possible for Noah to actually build an ark and where it might be today and that if someone who is not a Christian that is convinced of this will be more open to the Cross? Or, if you could first evidentially prove this or that, then I will believe?
Evidentialists, rationalists, verificationalists—all of these priority positions have severe limitations when it comes to communication. Man has a common ontological position, but no common epistemological position. There has to be a biblical wisdom in how one builds.
IMO, many debates and conversations and *call it what you like* lack wisdom because the foundation in order to build is not first stated. I’m not sure if we are on the same page or not Phil…some of what you wrote isn’t clear to me like,
“The gospel is not foundational in regard to epistemology. Epistemology is foundational to the gospel, else why would you believe the gospel?”
All I can say to that is this–as I understand things, one’s epistemology must be informed by hamartiology. A naive view of hamartiology will show itself down the line, and like the school teacher that has classroom control problems, it is difficult to get the classroom back once it is lost. The ground floor of the building must be hamartiology, then soteriology, then the Spirit/soul dynamic and lastly, method. I must add, one’s hamartiology needs to include the noetic effects of the Fall on man’s ability to reason. Even Christians need to be aware of sinful hangover and the need to constantly search the Scriptures. I said it clearly in my first post here;
“[McLaren] was educated under secular thinkers who comes to the Bible (for whatever motives he has) and tries to blend, merge & synthesize the cultural trends of thought into a meaningful way [method]. Like so many who have been educated without a biblical foundation, when they come to Scripture, they have such deep presuppositions, it is extremely difficult to “first seek to understand, before being understood.”
The Spirit of God works through the Word of God. I am taking an autopistic view over an axiopistic one.
Donsands,
Good point on the judgmental nature of the Emergent.
To Joe V,
Yes, I was actually confused when I read both the first and the last comments by you and almost deleted my comment to you. Will reread both.
On the epistemology thing, it is basic to everything. It is really second to none. The Bible does not dicuss it, but assumes it. The proof of it is the types of proof the Bible uses–they all rely on observably signs and logic to prove the unseen. McLaren simply asks us to dismiss the biblically-assumed epistemology as naive. Huuummm. God is naive?
Your recommendation on hamartiology as a filter through which to view epistemology is wrong, though. Sin effects the human heart and mind. God’s correspondence epistemology is as it is whether or not we sin. Sin changes US, not the fact that God has outfitted us in His grace with the mental powers and sensory organs to experience His creation and consider His ways.
Hamartiology is properly used as a filter through which to see our conclusions, ideas, and dispositions.
So, YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN in that you emphasize a regenerate mind (one informed by the gospel and transformed by the Holy Spirit) is the only mind that can hope to think clearly, and that only by relying on the Holy Spirit. (I believe that was a major point you made–right?)
On epistemology being basic to even the gospel, think of it this way. One has to be able to perceive the gospel by hearing it or reading it. And one has to assume that his perceptions correspond to something in the world. In other words, when I “hear” the gospel, I have to assume that the preacher exists and that he is actually saying these things to me. Then and only then can I make a decision to either accept or reject the gospel. (Epistemology=the study of how one knows what one knows.)
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Joe V.,
Having reread my first comment to you, I found I wrote this; “So your call to forget hermeneutics and epistemology in lieu of the gospel is nonsense,…”
I apologize. That was unnecessarily confrontational and abrasive. And in fact, if the times were different the talk of epistemology would be a definite rabbit trail of worthless chatter. These are just weird times.
In Christ,
Phil Perkins.
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.
Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murders and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.
Amen
Because this was posted publicly, I share it here. This was a response Brian McLaren had with a friend on his view of epistemology;
http://faithmaps.blogspot.com
See; Wednesday December 27
A Conversation with Brian McLaren on Epistemology
That conversation with Brian was way too confusing for me. I don’t get where he’s coming from. I need a little “plainer” language. I’m a simple guy. Or perhaps I’m just not in his league.
Thank the Lord, that I can be a simple guy, who loves the Lord, and loves His Word, and can understand the fundamental doctrines that God has so clearly given us, His beloved children.
Thanks for sharing that link Joe. I may read it with someone who can explain it to me better.
Joe V.,
My point exactly. McLaren says, “So, as soon as you admit that all certainty is relative for us creatures (i.e. there is more or less of it), then in a way, you have greater freedom
to say, ‘Yes, there is absolute truth, i.e. truth as God knows it, but for
all us finite creatures, our understanding and confidence about that truth
is in part, limited, relative to our finite perspectives,’ etc.”
First of all, all certainty is not relative. Oxymoronics aside, many things are certain. Gravity, the resurrection, etc.
Second, certainty does not mean complete understanding. I am certain electricity makes all my machinery run in my shop. I have no idea just why an electron has its force. But I’m certain it works as long as I pay my bill.
Third, it is interesting to notice the goal is “freedom” from the truth. (The truth about Emergents is wrapped up in that statement.)
Brian goes on to say, “In other words, maybe
you’re assuming that when God gives revelation, he also gives proper
interpretation of it, plus complete psychological certainty regarding that
interpretation to know it is correct. That would be nice (maybe …
although it would also mean that God turns us into robots by
mind-control) — but it doesn’t seem to match with either real-life
experience, or Biblical history!”
First, again, certainty of a truth does not imply (or need) complete knowledge of all aspects of it. Jesus rose from the dead. How God did that, I have no idea.
Second, the idea of “psychological certainty” as imperative for absolute certainty is a call to recede back into paganism. What I mean by that is that one of the hallmark of Christianity is its rational nature. It is truth. Our leader came into the world to bring truth, not mystery.
Third, notice the drive-by smear McLaren does to those that love truth and don’t seek to excuse themselves from it when he adds this lie: “(maybe …
although it would also mean that God turns us into robots by
mind-control).” So, if you don’t agree (with great certainty, I suppose) with McLaren, you’re a mind-numbed robot.
Fourth, another drive-by smear occurs when in the middle of the same paragraph, McLaren accuses believers of thinking themselves to be gods: “It almostfeels (in what you write Rodney) that you are assuming that receiving divine
revelation makes one divine.” Besides being a lie, the logic is just colosally vacuous.
Fifth, I would like to personally know just why no one out there will challenge a liberal like McLaren on his mean, unchristian attitude when he purposely insults believers, while a believer that challenges him is just raked over the coals for being contentious. Huuuummmmm…
McLaren’s epistemology–or lack thereof–prevents the certainty of the gospel.
Hence, he demonstrates that epistemology is foundational to the gospel, not the other way around.
The apostles were so certain of the gospel they died for it. But then they were just stupid robots, weren’t they? Or maybe they thought themselves divine, huh?
In Christ,
Phil Perkins. PS-It is also of great consequence to see that BM claims that God knows truth, not that He calls it into being as protrayed in Scripture.
Thanks Phil. That helps a whole bunch.
All for the Cross. Gal. 6:14
Dear John,
I looked up Emergent Church on Blogger and you came up. The odd thing is that I don’t really see how you are talking about them. You haven’t brought up any of their tennets except to say that they claim the bible to be irrelevant, which I sorely doubt to be the case. Nevertheless you continually berate them. I am asking you sincerely to qualify these remarks with reasons other than that you don’t like the younger generation. It does not seem to me that the Emergents challenge the relevance of the Bible, but ask how it already is relevant and applicaple to our time. Please clarify this.
Hi, Phil.
I like your phrase “drive-by smear.”
It’s very expressive.
Touchstone-
What does the quote from Mclaren… “Answer: Thanks for your note, and your concern. About your last question, I believe the Bible is uniquely authoritative for Christians.”… mean?
Is the Bible authoritative or not? Is it authoritative for all people whether they are Christian or not? Is it authoritative because of who wrote it or is it authoritative for Christians because they accept it while others may chose not to?
With regard to proof-texting Mclaren says : ” I intentionally avoid including a lot of Biblical references in my writing because the method of “proof-texting” is terribly problematic. ”
The “problem” of using oneself as proof for an idea is far greater than use of Scripture for a proof text. As long as scripture is used accurately it is not proof-texting to quote scripture. Should I stop eating because some people abuse food? Let’s be honest….
I recently posted on my blog the importance of the clarity of Scripture, that God has given us the ability to understand and know the timeless truth found in His word, which includes the true gospel message of which we rest our hope.
For, even as Paul wrote of himself and of all believers, “Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God…(1 Cor 2:12 NASB).”
We truly can know the things freely given to us by God. And, as we submit ourselves to leaders who shepherd us toward this truth, we as the church also have the divine right and responsibility to verify the gospel preached to us, as did those in Berea. “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so (Acts 17:11 NASB).” Because “As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed (Gal 1:9 NASB)!”
We need to keep challenging the erroneous messages that are being mixed with the true Gospel!!!
http://zdoppelt.blogspot.com/