A Certain Uncertainty
by Phil Johnson
One trademark of theological liberalism for the past seventy years is a reduction of faith to 'courageous ignorance.'"—Ronald Nash, Life's Ultimate Questions
omething that drives me crazy about the Emerging Conversation is the way endless disclaimers and qualifications are supposed to be piled onto every profession of belief. Even the most "conservative" Emerging types do this almost pathologically:"I know some wonderful, sensitive people probably won't agree with me; and I certainly don't claim to understand everything about this doctrine perfectly; and I know a lot of people have gone overboard with it; and good people who are smarter than me see things differently than I do; and I admit that my opinion may be shaped too much by Western culture and Greek philosophy; but it seems to me that the Bible really does teach that God will punish evildoers if they won't repent."
Any assertion not so qualified risks being labeled "excessive confidence," which according to Brian McLaren is a "cancer" responsible for practically everything that's wrong in the world.
Except for one thing. When you start seeing what a noxious malignancy certainty is, then it's OK to be really, really confident about uncertainty itself. In McLaren's words, "Thinking along these lines, I became convinced that, yes, many of our world's worst atrocities were indeed the result of overconfidence" (Everything Must Change, p. 39).
You won't hear postmodernists or their Emerging-church cousins saying many things with that kind of settled conviction! But their doubts about certainty per se are unwaveringly emphatic.
No one nowadays can make biblical or evangelical assertions with such confident boldness without having every truth-claim subjected to deconstruction, slow torture, or strangulation at the hands of some post-evangelical critic.
What's worse, more and more of the loudest critics are pastors, seminary professors, Christian authors, and others who have teaching or leadership roles in the church. Most of them would never overtly "deny" biblical truth-claims, of course. (Such a denial would require more certainty than some of these guys are comfortable with.) But they seem to have a pathological need to smother every article of faith under a million and one qualifications.
"Hey, I'm not saying I don't believe in the virgin birth of Christ; I'm just saying if it turned out not to be true, it wouldn't really matter. So it seems like we just shouldn't make it an essential point of our doctrine. But who am I to say, anyway? And who are you to make such a big deal out of it? Instead of arguing about the relative importance of this or that doctrine, shouldn't we do something more profitable—like ministry?"
Uncertainty is the sole remaining cardinal virtue of postmodernism. The right to question anything and everything is likewise the only dogma postmodern orthodoxy accepts uncritically. And (as we see all the time in the meta here) it's one of a small handful of ideas Emergents and their admirers can always be counted on to defend militantly.
In other words, Emerging religion has canonized doubt. And—let's be candid here—many who say they prefer the label "missional" are making the very same mistake. In fact, even in supposedly conservative and fundamentalist venues where "Truth and Certainty" are formally affirmed, you'll find no shortage of Christian leaders willing to palliate their supposed "convictions" almost to death in order to sound more "relevant" to postmoderns. The result has been a dearth of vigorous theological conviction which makes the whole drift instantly irrelevant—because it's nothing but a thoughtless echo of what most of the world already believes (or disbelieves) about the knowability of objective truth anyway.
Ironically, the canonization of doubt as a virtue is also a clear echo of the very worst tendency of modernism (see the Ronald Nash quote above)—which means, really, that the "postmodern" skepticism of our Emerging friends isn't technically postmodern at all. Their modernist ancestors were fine with so-called scientific certainties; but they despised spiritual certainties—especially certainties grounded in the conviction that the Bible is truly God's Word. Emergent Christianity has expanded (not rejected) the modernist mindset by insisting on uncertainty about everything—except, of course, the infallible dogma of uncertainty.
Which is why Brian McLaren—who is certain about virtually nothing else—is so cocksure in his conviction that everything must change.
It's also why the convergence of postmodern, post-evangelical and Emergent trends is just a big, noisy ride to nowhere.
Labels: emergent, like ministry, Phil Johnson, PostModernism
posted by Phil Johnson on Friday, December 07, 2007
165 Comments:
I'm beginning to feel uncertain about my uncertainty.
"Emerging religion has canonized doubt."
What a great phrase, Phil. No wonder the true canon is nuanced out of all power in so many places.
Question:
How do you defend your faith...when the person claims to be a Christian...says a lot of things in the Bible aren't certain...and then goes crazy on you because you speak in absolutes?
You treat them not as a believer, or a badly deceived brother in Christ (I say the former)? And when you say "No one comes to Father except through Me",
and they hem and haw after you show them the verse and others which reveal the absolute certainty and authority of Scripture...
At that point, all you can do is keep pointing to Christ if they'll listen. When I read the New Testament for the first time, there was nothing to me that suggested that Christ was uncertain about ANYTHING. And of course, that stands today and is of course true. I would like to know how Brian Mclaren and others have come to this "revelation" that the Bible is like a weather forecast...sometimes right, sometimes...
In other words, Emerging religion has canonized doubt. And—let's be candid here—many who say they prefer the label "missional" are making the very same mistake.
Who does this apply to? Men like Piper, Keller, Driscoll, and Stetzer who are on the forefront of the conservative missional movement?
I do not think it is invalid, unbiblical, or unchristian to have doubts. I think it is pretty arrogant not to have any doubts, as if one can actually know the entire mind of God.
WIth that said, I think doubting can be extreme in many circles and within those circles there needs to be facts stated firmly on Biblical authority.
But is there really no room for doubts in the Christian life?
Art: "But is there really no room for doubts in the Christian life?"
That pretty much depends on what you are "doubting," doesn't it? For example, I doubt you really thought I was suggesting there is no room for any qualms whatsoever in a discerning Christian's mind. I have, after all, been pretty outspoken about the dangers of certain kinds of gullibility.
But in case you somehow really missed it, the actual point of the post is that doubt per se shouldn't be celebrated as a cardinal virtue--especially the kind of doubt that tones down the certainty of God's revealed Word.
If you're still not clear on the concept, see Hebrews 11:1-6.
Outstanding Post!!!
"In other words, Emerging religion has canonized doubt."
Heh, heh. The only thing that you can be certain of as an Emergent is of your uncertainty. How stupid is that?
"I am certain that I am uncertain."
Laughable. Continuing on: "And because I'm uncertain, I must impose my uncertainty upon you and your beliefs which means that you must be uncertain too. And that you hold your beliefs with the same uncertainty that I do. And if you're not uncertain about the assertions that you make, then I must judge you with certainty and name-call you as being arrogant, a dogmatic absolutist, a divisive fundamentalist. Which is unlike me, a true, humble follower of Christ."
Get with the Emergent program TeamPyro.
;-)
This is mastering the obvious, but the pathological behavior to disclaim certain truth is precisely why men "wander off into myths". (2 Tim 4:4.)
Once again, we see that these are the men, in our lifetime, who are always "learning" but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Thanks for your kind response Phil.
Phil,
When you cited the passage from Hebrews, it led me back to something I've pondered but never really crystallized in my mind: the ECM seems to be an attack on faith at its core.
In that passage, the writer of Hebrews reminds us to place confidence in certain truths which may only be imagined today (but will be visible tomorrow), and it is through being confident of these divinely inspired promises about the future that we are sanctified as we live on this earth.
But the emerging church tells us to only focus contemporary earthly realities, namely, on making the world "heaven on earth" now.
I suspect that they are such proponents of doubting God & his word because once you open yourself up to doubting all the promises of God (especially what he will do in the future) the apparent virtue of becoming completely absorbed in making this world some sort of utopia is all you have left.
I think that does a lot to explain why there's such a problem with sanctification in the ECM, too.
I know ECM comes across as a sort of loose-knit collection of theologians, pastors, and laypeople...but even if that's true, I think ECM has a very consistent world-view with a very consistent way of misapplying scripture to back it up.
They aren't harmless, this mentality of the "here and now" have thrown a wrench in the faith of a lot of true-blue believers I know and consequently tripped them up on the road of sanctification as well.
Additionally, this all leads me to side more and more with MacArthur on the importance of getting Revelation right. As Emergers are tearing away more and more at the value of a strong eschatology, I believe evangelicals, in order to preserve the sanctification of their congregations, must stand strong on eschatological doctrines, especially emphasizing their importance as a motivator for actions today.
So, thanks for the post Phil. It got me thinkin'!
There is a pun that says that Apologists are a sorry lot. Maybe it's starting to lose its pun status?
Regards,
I remember the old chant "Question Authority!" from my youth.
This seems to smack of that kind of mindset. Cast doubt on everything established and accepted by the status quo and in so doing you can be thought of as "open minded" and an "independent thinker"...
And this sort of posturing is always so attractive to the youth (witness the early '60's rockers and their followers, i.e. The Stones, the Who et al).
The only difference is that then it was a political rebellion, now this same thinking is brought in to divide the Body of Christ.
So, he's confident that overconfidence is a problem.
But only overconfidence by Bible-believers.
Got it.
An interesting post, contrasted to (compared? read together with?) C.M. Patton's post at Parchment and Pen today.
Nice post. More good thoughts on the EC. Posts like these help keep us sharp and thinking. Contending for the faith is not an easy thing to do.
The truth does not matter to many teachers in the Church.
They say, "The Church used to believe the world was flat!"
And they use this to show that maybe in 50 years from now we will have learned so much more that the Church is wrong about.
Brian McLaren said we need to revisit what homosexuality is all about in a few years from now.
They no longer "rejoice in the truth", (which "rejoicing" is an evidence of biblical love, the genuine Christain love which is fruit from the Holy Spirit).
They have forsaken this love for their own humanistic love, and with a 'certain' amount of Christianity either blended in, or thinly applied as a covering.
If you're greatest joy is not the truth of Christ and Him crucified and risen, then repentance is in order. I have needed to repent many times, and yet when I do, then I see the Cross afresh, and I once again experience the "unspeakable joy" that Christ longs for us to know. (John 15:11;16:22,24;17:13)
We need to survey the wondrous Cross continually. It's the truth, and our greatest joy, that Christ gave Himself for us. And this is what makes life precious.
This is nothing but a charicature. McLaren is confident about many things. Reading his books shows as much. Even this post grants that he is certain in his own doubts, and certain that everything must change.
Painting him as wishy-washy is a dodge. The truth is, McLaren refuses to take a side in the battles that have been of prime importance to evangelicals for the longest time, because he wants to push deeper, to more important questions--and answers!
The problem is, many don't like either the questions or the answers. Many of us only know how to fight the old battles. So we try to throw McLaren back into one of the old boxes, like, "he's a liberal!" "He doesn't have scripture as authority!" or "He doesn't believe in truth!"
It would be more honest to just say that you don't like his conclusions, than to call him uncertain.
"McLaren refuses to take a side in the battles that have been of prime importance to evangelicals for the longest time, because he wants to push deeper, to more important questions--and answers!"
I completely disagree with this, having read several McLaren tomes, blog posts, etc. He does not want to "push deeper." He wants to destroy. He does not want to solidify doctrine. He wants to toss it out and start from scratch and reach any place that is NOT traditional.
I mean, what can you do with someone who claims to have found the "secret message" of Jesus after 2000 years of some of the greatest minds in history missing it?
Phil is absoutely right. While doubts and questions will arise, one's foundation can either be there IS an answer (even if I don't find it personally) or there is NO answer because we're stuck in unqualified relativism. This latter base is where the pomo/EC comes from. It is "canonization" of doubt indeed, not a confrontation of it.
Drew—It would be more honest to just say that you don't like his conclusions, than to call him uncertain.
Again and again, when Phil interacts with the actual words of these false teachers, you come in and invent a line of defense.
I think it would be more honest if you said you just like these guys and the feeling that numbering yourself with their movement gives you, no matter what they actually say or stand for.
I like these guys because they interpret scripture faithfully, because they love God with their whole lives, and love their neighbors, too.
And I'm not "inventing" a defense. I'm calling a foul on a criticism that is not only uncharitable, but also untrue.
Yes, they do a great job, except for the dozens of streaming examples Phil keeps bringing up and you keep "la-la-la"ing.
How is the weather in Dreamland these days, anyway? Cloudy?
Have you ever read McClaren's stuff Drew? Or the Bible?
Do you seriously think they jive with each other?
...I was afraid of that...
Remember, McClaren is not saying that we need to remember to take care of the world as well, he's said we need to do that INSTEAD...
(As has been pointed out numerous times before)
That's what I am talking about.
As I see it, this post is saying, "McLaren should be dismissed, because he just doubts, and never says anything."
But on other posts, you rail against him because he says things like we should heal the world instead of convert individuals or whatever comes after the INSTEAD.
So, as I see it, your problem isn't that he doesn't say anything. You know he's saying something (and something much more than just "question authority", and you don't like it.
Well Drew, when the sum of his work is "Doubt what God said" and "Being a godd environmentalist is more important than converting sinners" what else is there to say about him?
"You know he's saying something (and something much more than just "question authority", and you don't like it."
Seriously, dude, take a breath and re-read. Of COURSE we know he's sayng something more than "question authority" and it's a lot MORE than not liking it. It's destructive.
Another thing that drives ME crazy, is that McLaren hides his contempt for the fundamentals in a layer of false humility. Did you ever read his open letter snark to Colson? Talk about damning with "love." Ick.
One thing about TeamPyro is you don't have to wade through layers of ersatz docility to find out what they're really thinking. With McL, you do. Ick again.
Drew: "As I see it, this post is saying, "McLaren should be dismissed, because he just doubts, and never says anything.""
Not exactly. This post is sayng McLaren should be opposed, partly because of the way he glorifies doubt while denigrating faith; partly because of where such an earth-bound world-view leads him; and partly because of the way he undermines the authority of Scripture.
Now it's your turn to be honest: The part of that which irks you most is its refusal to take McLaren on board and start with the presupposition that whatever his underlying worldview, it's just as valid as anyone else's opinion, and he's bound to be helpful somehow if we just give him a listen. Am I right?
As I see it, this post is saying, "McLaren should be dismissed, because he just doubts, and never says anything."
McLaren disarms his readers by doubting so much that has been essential to Christianity for 2,000 years. He encourages doubt and relabels it humility. But this is so self-defeating because while he encourages doubt in one area [historic orthodoxy], he is really confident in his own beliefs. I think Phil is really trying to say "the emperor has no clothes".
People drawn to his "doubt" and "hermeneutic of suspicion" often fail to see that he does not consistently apply this 'method' to the things he is most passionate about. If he was truly consistent his book would be "why perhaps almost everything may have to change or just be tweaked, a little bit, or just be altered slighty, although some may disagree, and there opinion is valid and I may be entirely wrong because I just don't know if we should do what I say..." Of course, if he applied uncertainty consistantly there would be nothing to sell. Sadly, there is a certainty to the emerging movement and most often it is not a certainty to the very things Christ calls us to be certain on (Col 2:2-3, 6-8).
Phil, great Nash quote. For the life of me, I've always had trouble understanding how emerging folks have claimed to move beyond fundamentalism/liberalism divide when so many of the driving forces can be found in liberalism.
Thanks Phil.
"The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love IN THE TRUTH; and not only I, but also all those that have known THE TRUTH.
For THE TRUTH"S sake, which lives in us, and shall be with us for ever.
Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in TRUTH and love.
I rejoiced greatly that I found your children walking in TRUTH, as we have received a commandment from the Father." 3 John 1-4
"Holy Father, keep through Your own name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one, as We are.
I have given them Your Word; ... Sanctify them through Your TRUTH: Your Word is TRUTH. ... I sanctify Myself, that they also might be sanctified through THE TRUTH." John 17:11-19
Love rejoices in the TRUTH. The Church of Christ has been given the TRUTH, and we need to proclaim it boldly. And we need to live it, and be it, in another sense.
Now it's your turn to be honest: The part of that which irks you most is its refusal to take McLaren on board and start with the presupposition that whatever his underlying worldview, it's just as valid as anyone else's opinion, and he's bound to be helpful somehow if we just give him a listen. Am I right?
If you aren't exactly right, you are pretty darn close.
McLaren and like-minded people appeal to me because they wrote the books that I would like to think I would have written. What I mean to say is, they articualted my theology before I could.
So his "worldview" is very similiar to mine, which is why I like it (duh), and why I reach similar conclusions (double duh).
Do I think the worldview is as good as any other one? Actually, no--I think it's better! At the same time, this worldview insists that I hear other views, and listening to them seriously means that I must humble myself, and yes--even doubt my strongest held beliefs.
I do think it would be helpful if you gave him a listen, for a number of reasons.
"McLaren disarms his readers by doubting so much that has been essential to Christianity for 2,000 years. He encourages doubt and relabels it humility. But this is so self-defeating because while he encourages doubt in one area [historic orthodoxy], he is really confident in his own beliefs. I think Phil is really trying to say 'the emperor has no clothes'."
Exactly. McLaren is such a hypocrite, it's a wonder that anyone actually takes him seriously. The scary thing is that so many do, and I would venture to say that it's the logical consequence of putting one's own ideology as an authority over Scripture. It's the same lie that the serpent told Eve: "God doesn't really know what He's talking about - you can figure these things out for yourself."
People have been listening to other views long before McL articulated it. But as we listen, we have got to test the spirits to see whether they are of God (1 John 4:1) And you can't do that with doubt, but with faith.
Drew,
Is there anything that you believe that God has definitively said and revealed to us in the Bible? I'm sure you'd say yes. Would you mind giving me an example, and then telling me why you believe it?
Some choices might be:
- Inerrancy
- Inspiration
- any of the 5 solas
- PSA
- virgin birth
- trinity,
- any of the 5 points of Calvinism
It is obvious that Drew is angry. I think that's a valid human emotion. However, I'm sure that the TPers (TPs) and others here choose to be angry at sin and evil and not at the church that they feel did them wrong like McLaren. That is one of the things that I find most often when I hear McLaren (or Bell). They are angry at the churches they grew up in and those who believe in a certain eschatology and who are otherwise certain about what they believe.
They (McLaren and Bell) then launch into an attack that denigrates the churches with whom they are angry and they complain that they are bad and evil because they only believe certain things, but they are better than those churches because they DO certain things.
Exactly who is the Pharisee in that scenario?
Sidebar: I keep hearing this phrase "God loves you just the way you are." Any of the TPs care to comment on that?
Drew:
The part of the equation I'm not willing to entertain is the presupposition that all worldviews are merely opinions, and an unbiblical worldview is therefore as valid as what the Bible says.
I also think it's wrong—no, it's anti-Christian—to think it's OK to foster doubts about what the Bible says; or to teach that God's Word is ultimately no more authoritative than Brian McLaren's opinion; or to imagine that no one can ever truly know the difference between what Scripture actually teaches and someone's mere opinion about what it teaches.
Ok... Phil just basically stated as clearly as possible everything that I was intending to demonstrate in a few steps. :o)
So, Drew, if you don't want to answer my question, that's fine.... as long as you read what Phil just said five times.
Drew:
Incidentally, if you read the blog, you surely know that I've read several of Bian McLaren's books. So it's not that I'm unwilling to "give him a listen" in any sense whatsoever. It's that I'm not willing to give a sympathetic hearing to someone who shows so much contempt for the authority of Scripture on the face of everything he writes—and I don't think any Christian should.
I love Mark Driscoll's description of closed hand/open hand approach to theology and ministry.
In the closed hand are theological truths that are cannot be ignored, denied or altered.
In the open hand are the methodoligies used to communicate these truths.
If there is room for discussion, its in the area of methodology, although Scripture still holds us accountable as well.
This is what I'm finding over and over, even those of us who have read McLaren are repeatedly told to read him and we'll see the light. WE HAVE READ HIM, and, sadly, there is no light there to see.
"I do think it would be helpful if you gave him a listen, for a number of reasons."
Drew, I think a lot of us are trying to listen and that is the point we don't like what we hear and we try to demonstrate and articulate why.
It seems that you mean "listen" in another sense, you wish more of us here would be convinced or agree with McLaren.
I hope your not trying to say that just because someone disagrees they aren't really listening. I also hope your not saying that only those who agree are those who are really listening.
I hope your not suggesting that if we really "understood" something we'd be compelled to agree with it.
Drew:
Do you doubt your (obviously strongly-held) belief that you must be ready at all times to doubt your most strongly-held beliefs?
If so, how is it not self-refuting/disarming? Why not be correctable by the Scriptural commands to be faithful in love and in faith to the One True God Who is the Redeemer of mankind and also its Judge? After all, your obligation to doubt has been doubted and therefore has sunk.
If not, why the inconsistency on that point?
Phil,
I hate to say it, but the spell of "Wonderland" is wafting its way through the ether again. Any moment now, either the Queen will shout "off with their heads" or Humpty Dumpty will declare from the shadows, "words mean whatever I want them to mean. No more, no less."
Drew, I heartily recommend that you read "Alice in Wonderland" by Lewis Carroll. While not a Christian book, it is certainly instructive about the Emergent mindset and view of reality.
john haller-
God loves us just the way we are is why he is conforming us to the image of his Son.
Oxymoronic, no?
In my view John Haller hits the bullseye here:
"They (McLaren and Bell) then launch into an attack that denigrates the churches with whom they are angry and they complain that they are bad and evil because they only believe certain things, but they are better than those churches because they DO certain things."
The hypocrisy they exhibit is that while teaching against certainty, they themselves are certain of the above.
"Exactly who is the Pharisee in that scenario?" Precisely!
dac: "An interesting post, contrasted to (compared? read together with?) C.M. Patton's post at Parchment and Pen today."
Indeed. Patton is advocating a kind of self-doubt (really self-examination—2 Corinthians 13:5). I'm decrying the kind of doubt that is set against God's revealed truth. The first commenter under Patton's post does a pretty fair job of pointing out the necessary distinction. Given that simple distinction, I can wholeheartedly affirm what Michael Patton said in his post today, while standing by what I wrote.
The difficulty comes when that necessary distinction is rubbed out by those who buy into postmodernism's anti-epistemology. They conflate self-doubt with doubt toward God's Word by insisting that "epistemic humility" requires us to believe we can't really ever know for sure what the Bible means. So we can't hold any truth with settled conviction, even if it's something the Bible plainly says—because at the end of the day, we can't really trust our own interpretation of the Bible.
That's the position Drew is advocating. It's also what underlies McLaren's trademark skepticism toward truth and certainty.
And the reason Drew shouldn't be surprised to find McLaren channeling his very thoughts before Drew himself has even given expression to them is that practically everything in our culture tells us we ought to think that way. And apparently Drew and McLaren don't distrust the trends of the culture as much as they distrust the Bible. Drew and his famous mentor (and hordes of post-evangelicals along with them) have basically joined the greater portion of Western postmodern society in an act of collective epistemological suicide. While talking a lot about "engaging" the culture, they have actually been pressed into postmodern culture's mold.
And that mold is a perfect coffin.
Amen and Amen! Keep on telling it like it is!
Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk, writes on his website: "I am on a post-evangelical journey, discovering what it means to be vitally connected to Jesus. That process is always worth sharing."
Phil Johnson writes the following: "Drew and his famous mentor (and hordes of post-evangelicals along with them) have basically joined the greater portion of Western postmodern society in an act of collective epistemological suicide."
I wonder if Michael Spencer (aka the Internet Monk) defines "post-evangelical" the same as PJ, and if Michael Spencer would agree with PJ's prognosis of the post-evangelical journey?
Wow. I shouldn't have left my computer. It's tough when life gets in the way.
A couple responses off the top of my head, and then I will go through a little bit more systematically.
I know that many of you have listened to McLaren. I didn't bring that up. Phil suggested that I would really like it if he/others listened to McLaren, and I concurred. I never meant to imply that you didn't.
I do question my strongly held conviction that even strongly held convictions should be questioned.
As for questioning scripture, I think that questions are a must, when it comes to interpretation. And questions always involve some bit of doubt or uncertainty.
This certainly DOES run the risk of setting myself up over scripture. Which is why I also question myself, and challenge myself. If I interpret scripture in a way that is particularly self-affirming, than a doubt that scripture even more.
Of the 5 points of Calvinism, I hold them all. Total depravity means that every part of me has been touched by sin, and I am NOT a faithful interpreter of scripture. So I question and doubt every conclusion that I reach, and I submit myself to the Holy Spirit, other brothers and sisters in Christ (including saints that have gone before me) and the whole counsel of scripture.
And I realize that even "heavyweights" have gotten things wrong. Calvin burned anabaptists at the stake. Luther was an anti-Semite. Even Augustine seemed to get a few things wrong. Heck, even Peter got Praxis wrong in acts and had to be corrected by Paul. Why should modern thinkers seem to think they will bat 1.000? McLaren should doubt himself because you (his brothers) doubt him, and you should doubt your convictions because he (a brother) doubts yours. So yes, I doubt myself, and therefore, I doubt my interpretation of scripture. Likewise, I doubt all other human interpretations, and human interpretations are the only kind there are. (Please don't hear this wrong. I believe that scripture is divinely inspired, but as soon as a person reads it, than interpretation begins).
Ok. That's a start. Time to work through some of the rest.
Drew,
Even "Doubting Thomas" finally came to a conclusion.
John H:
I don't think I am that angry, but I do get frustrated with teampyro sometimes, and that sometimes becomes angry. But today is my day off. I wouldn't let a blog take that joy away from me!
I don't think I ever said, "God loves you just the way you are," but I do believe that while we were still sinenrs, Christ died for us. So God loves sinners, even in their sinful state, but he that does not mean that he wants them to remain in said state.
I don't think that McLaren and Bell have sold their churches as "better" communities. They apply their own self-doubt to their communities. I have to believe that they would be the first to admit that they don't have it right (and then they'd get criticized for that!).
Phil in your last comment, you were right on, in understanding how I approach scirpture, but I would disagree with this part:
And apparently Drew and McLaren don't distrust the trends of the culture as much as they distrust the Bible. Drew and his famous mentor (and hordes of post-evangelicals along with them) have basically joined the greater portion of Western postmodern society in an act of collective epistemological suicide. While talking a lot about "engaging" the culture, they have actually been pressed into postmodern culture's mold.
And that mold is a perfect coffin.
I also distrust the trends, and the greater culture. I, like McLaren, was formed in the evangelical sub-culture, which I also distrust. It's not, as is so popularly alleged, "what is cool," or "what works," but "what is true" that I aim for.
But I admit that I will likely miss. I don't think that we have committed epistemological suicide. I think the old epistemology has collapsed under its own weight. I guess I see the emergent crowd as having admitted that, and sought out to find a new epistemology. Until we find it, we do speak carefully, or at least try to.
If we end up in a coffin, than that's ok. Dieing with Christ comes before rising with Christ.
"Likewise, I doubt all other human interpretations, and human interpretations are the only kind there are. (Please don't hear this wrong. I believe that scripture is divinely inspired, but as soon as a person reads it, than interpretation begins"
I hope this isn't what you meant Drew, but it sure sounds like you've given yourself permission to doubt the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, salvation by faith alone etc etc ad nauseum just because you could find a way to put them under the fallible human interpretation category.
Where's the trust in God to communicate his word clearly and simply (in such a way that the idea that the church has missed the 'Secret message of Jesus' for 2000 years becomes impossible to believe even)
Drew said:
It's not, as is so popularly alleged, "what is cool," or "what works," but "what is true" that I aim for.
You have to interpret ANY AND ALL FACTS from ANY text, from ANY author, from ANY speaker, even if it's Rob Bell or B-Mac.
The difference between everything else and the Bible is that the Bible is God's revelation. I know you said you doubt even your strongest-held beliefs, but you might run into trouble here: Do you think God didn't make His revelation sufficiently clear and understandable?
True humility does not disagree with God's opinion of you; true humility submits to the Master and goes from there.
Drew,
So does that mean you think Paul should have listened to the Judizers and "super apostles"? You know, see what they had to say and contribute to the conversation?
Drew, you're mixing up too many things here. Questions, even doubts, are not bad in and of themselves...it's what you do with them. What McLaren is doing is not just "doubting" but REMOVING the very possibility of resolving doubt.
And his is not, as has been stated over and over again, a benign questioning. He wants to DESTROY fundamental Christianity. Not reform it; kill it.
Yes, any one of us can "get things wrong" but we believe there really exists a "right" that is worth pursuing. McL would declare the pursuit fruitless and even harmful.
First of all, the Secret Message of Jesus has a horrible, overly provocative title, and its not about what you think it means. McLaren does not pretend to discover "new, secret knowledge, or anything like that."
Do I have permission to doubt those things? Of course I do! But at the same time, I'm not going to lightly throw away the wise counsel of the vast majority of the Church. And I have thought carefully about each of the things that you have listed. There is no good reason to disagree with what the church has taught for centuries on these matters.
On the other hand, the church has been pretty united about other things before, and bold people have had to say they were wrong (Papal authority, for example).
Drew,
So does that mean you think Paul should have listened to the Judizers and "super apostles"? You know, see what they had to say and contribute to the conversation?
He spent most of his life listening to them, and he followed them for some time! He knew their argument QUITE well before he rejected it.
And his is not, as has been stated over and over again, a benign questioning. He wants to DESTROY fundamental Christianity. Not reform it; kill it. . . we believe there really exists a "right" that is worth pursuing. McL would declare the pursuit fruitless and even harmful.
This is not the McLaren that I have read. Can you back up these allegations?
"He spent most of his life listening to them, and he followed them for some time! He knew their argument QUITE well before he rejected it."
Same goes for the EC. Restating the social gospel of yester-year doesn't constitute a new idea but an old one with which all Christians should already be familiar. (I realize they are not, but they should be)
This book review should suffice for backing that up.
Drew, when you get a chance I'd really like an answer to my question as well.
Let me put things a bit more strongly, and perhaps get to the root of the issue. Considering what happened with Adam and Eve when they began to doubt the word of God Himself -- not to mention the fruit of their doubt, disbelief and then disobedience -- the stakes are serious.
Is not doubting the word of God tantamount to calling Him a liar? Case in point, God clearly condemns homosexuality in Scripture. But we are told by McLaren to have a five-year moratorium on discussing the issue until the church can figure out what it thinks about homosexuality.
There are other examples I could give. And we are not talking about particularly difficult passages of Scripture here. Some debate about those areas one could understand. But other areas can't possibly be spelled out any more clearly. When people can't understand such clear statements, it makes me suspect a lobotomy has been performed.
Whenever someone asks, "Did God really say," I think we ought to be able to discern the hiss of the serpent. Why don't they just come out and admit it? They really don't think the Bible is God's written word, inerrant and fully authoritative. Some are subtle about their denial of Scripture, wanting to have the veneer of "loving the Bible," while others are very up front about their disdain.
It's not a very long walk between where Brian McLaren is now and a certain individual named John Shelby Spong. It's only a matter of time unless he comes to his senses.
"First of all, the Secret Message of Jesus has a horrible, overly provocative title, and its not about what you think it means. McLaren does not pretend to discover 'new, secret knowledge, or anything like that.'"
I would say we should take exception to the above. Because in his review of "The Secret Teachings of Jesus," my friend Dr. Gary Gilley reveals further McLaren’s deviation from the Gospel of Jesus Christ itself:
But herein lies the problem. McLaren does believe that the church has never understood the real message of Jesus.'
In fact on page 91 McLaren himself enlightens us that the Church itself has not even understood the Gospel because, as Gilley shows, according to McLaren this is not actually “justification by grace through faith, the free gift of salvation, Christ being a substitutionary sacrifice for [one’s] sin.” Instead says McLaren “the kingdom of God is at hand. That was Jesus’ message”.
Daryl: McLaren comes out of evangelicalism. Either way, the point stands--you should seek to understand something (evangicalism, liberalism, super-judaizers, or whatever) before you publicly criticize them. Sometimes this takes a long time. With other ideas, it doesn't take much (I never considered Mormonism for too long, for example).
Rho, I guess the answer depends on what "suffiecntly" means. Sufficient enough to respond? Absolutley. Sufficient enough to know God relationally? yup. Sufficiently enough to completely understand him and his ways? nope, not even close.
ken. McL didn't "discover" that message. It was in the Bible, and it has been proclaimed by the church throughout history.
Drew,
"it has been proclaimed by the church throughout history."
No, the denial of "justification by grace through faith, the free gift of salvation, Christ being a substitutionary sacrifice for [one’s] sin" has not been "proclaimed by" the historic orthodox Church.
Yet, proving Johnson's thesis in the above post, this is McLaren's "certain" declaration in that book however.
TUaD: "I wonder if Michael Spencer (aka the Internet Monk) defines "post-evangelical" the same as PJ, and if Michael Spencer would agree with PJ's prognosis of the post-evangelical journey?"
I long ago gave up trying to guess how the iMonk would answer any question. It's my impression that he tends to backpeddle when criticism of his various worldview experiments hit too close to home, and (let's be clear, here:) that's prolly a good thing. Nevertheless, you've got to weigh the fact that what he's best-known for (and seems most proud of) are angst-filled "confessional" pieces where he recounts his serial worldview shifts as he abandons things he would once have deemed certain and/or essential truths, while embracing newer, more fashionable ideas.
This issue of pathological paradigm-shifting comes up in our meta frequently—and not just with regard to the iMonk. I could name several fairly well-known quasi-evangelical pundits who think constantly renouncing whatever they themselves said just last year is the very essence of "humility." There are even whole blogs devoted to this notion, suggesting that everyone's "spiritual journey" ought to be filled with hairpin twists and turns (contra Colossians 1:23; Ephesians 4:14, and a host of other passages that urge us to be steadfast in the faith).
So I know already that someone is going to reply to this comment by pretending I've said it's always wrong to change your mind. For the record, that's not even close to the point I am making. As I have said before, "No one around here ever suggested it's 'wicked' to change one's mind or theological perspective. What I [am saying] is that people who are prone to undergo regular seismic worldview-level paradigm-shifts every other year or so prolly shouldn't fancy themselves fit teachers or be chronically argumentative until they have stood firm in an opinion for at least five years or thereabouts.
And likewise in another place, I wrote: "I have a couple of friends who undergo seismic paradigm-shifts in their thinking every three years or so, like clockwork. And when their friends don't follow every wind of change, they tend to get really upset. Actually, the blogosphere sometimes seems dominated by people like that, and they like to blog nonstop about the recalcitrance of Reformed opinion.
"[But] who is more 'arrogant'? Someone who refuses to compromise even when popular thinking shifts against him, or the guy who never settles on any truth and yet constantly argues about everything anyway—not really because he himself has stumbled on something he is certain about, but merely because his contempt for other people's strong convictions is the way he justifies his waffling in his own mind?"
I'd like to point out that Scripture never commends people for the "humility" of claiming they're not sure what's true and what's false, or what God's Word really means. And the Bible never encourages us to remain unanchored about what we believe and celebrate our doubts—especially while we're functioning as teachers of others. Jesus referred to that as the blind leading the blind, and He indicated that it's a Really Bad Thing.
Drew, Drew, Drew, history my friend, history...
Paul was never a Judizer that he attacked in Galations or a member of the "super apostles" mentioned in Corinthians. You confuse these groups with the Pharisaical sect Pual belonged to. These were so-called "Christians" that Paul confronted for teaching a false gospel.
He didn't say we should listen to them, consider what they had to say, etc. Merely that they were false teachers who should be called out and cast out.
and rho, that review didn't do the job.
Drew,
Yes the church has proclaimed that message but within the context that "that Son of Man came to seek and save that which was lost" not fix all social wrongs in order to create a better life for people.
This is what McLaren misses (odd at his age) life is SHORT, eternity is not, hell is real, so is heaven (at least according to Jesus)
I love the spin...
Emergent: "No, no, we don't doubt God's word, it's oursleves we doubt."
In the immortal words of Peanuts: "Good grief!"
Chris, you got me on the histroy question. One more reason I should doubt myself, I guess :)
Daryl, I was responding to McLaren's positive statement, about the Kingdom. He doesn't necessarily reject the system that you outline, he simply points out that the message Christ proclaimed was more simple.
"Either way, the point stands--you should seek to understand something (evangicalism, liberalism, super-judaizers, or whatever) before you publicly criticize them. Sometimes this takes a long time. With other ideas, it doesn't take much (I never considered Mormonism for too long, for example)."
Consider neo-marxism. Consider the Hegelian dialectic. Recognize that Biblical Scripture cannot be framed, or interpreted, with either.
There. That didn't take long.
Drew,
But do you doubt that the review didn't do the job?
I meant my first question to you, which I'm more interested in:
Do you doubt your (obviously strongly-held) belief that you must be ready at all times to doubt your most strongly-held beliefs?
If so, how is it not self-refuting/disarming? Why not be correctable by the Scriptural commands to be faithful in love and in faith to the One True God Who is the Redeemer of mankind and also its Judge? After all, your obligation to doubt has been doubted and therefore has sunk.
If not, why the inconsistency on that point?
Surely this quote -
"In the following chapters, brother is alienated from brother and a form of class violence enters the story, as the class of pastoralists (symbolized by Abel) are exterminated by the class of agriculturalists (symbolized by Cain)."
indicates something of McLaren's refusal to take Scripture at face value and gives us all a reason to start with suspiscion when reveiwing McLAren's ideas and ask him to allay those fears, rather than the other way around.
How can someone who misuses such clear passages of Scripture so easily (replacing real people for classes of people) expect the same level of trust given to say, Dr. McArthur or Dr. Piper?
Drew "He doesn't necessarily reject the system that you outline,"
Actually when he insists that we need to pursue social action INSTEAD of making disciples/converts, he really does reject the gospel Paul preached.
By the way, what is more simple that "You must be born again" ??
(except maybe "Repent")
Do you doubt your (obviously strongly-held) belief that you must be ready at all times to doubt your most strongly-held beliefs?
If so, how is it not self-refuting/disarming? Why not be correctable by the Scriptural commands to be faithful in love and in faith to the One True God Who is the Redeemer of mankind and also its Judge? After all, your obligation to doubt has been doubted and therefore has sunk.
1. yes.
2. It is self-refuting.
3. I do seek to be corrected by God and his word.
yup. I'm sunk. It's the problem of post-modernity.
But if we take sin seriously, it's not just my problem, but all of ours.
Drew, the body and trajectory of McL's work quite obviously points in that direction. Do you know what The Fundamentals are? Ever read them? Do you know how many McLaren is actively working against? That's backup enough for me.