The doctrine of the clarity (or perspicuity) of Scripture (that the central message of the Bible is clear and understandable, and that the Bible itself can be properly interpreted in a normal, literal sense) has been a cornerstone of evangelical belief ever since the Reformation.
The dominant Roman Catholic idea had been that the Bible was obscure and difficult to understand. But the Reformers disagreed, arguing instead that anyone who could read could understand biblical teaching. Rather than limiting biblical interpretation to the clergy or the Magisterium, the Reformers encouraged lay Christians to study and interpret God's Word on their own. All of this was premised on the Reformed belief that the Bible itself was inherently clear, and that God had been able to communicate His message to men in an understandable fashion. As Luther explained to Erasmus:
But, if many things still remain abstruse to many, this does not arise from obscurity in the Scriptures, but from [our] own blindness or want [i.e. lack] of understanding, who do not go the way to see the all-perfect clearness of truth. . . . Let, therefore, wretched men cease to impute, with blasphemous perverseness, the darkness and obscurity of their own heart to the all-clear Scriptures of God. . . . If you speak of the internal clearness, no man sees one iota in the Scriptures but he that hath the Spirit of God. . . . If you speak of the external clearness, nothing whatever is left obscure or ambiguous; but all things that are in the Scriptures, are by the Word brought forth into the clearest light, and proclaimed to the whole world. (Bondage of the Will, 25-29)
While such an understanding, as Luther openly admits, did not demand complete agreement among Protestants on every secondary doctrine, it did establish an important principle: That the Word of God was revealed in an understandable way, that its central message is clear, and that (because it is clear) all men are fully accountable to its message.
In contrast to this, the teachings of Brian McLaren (and others of his Emergent persuasion) directly assault the doctrine of biblical clarity. Instead of promoting a settled confidence in the fact that the Bible can be understood, McLaren does just the opposite. And he does so in at least five important ways.
1. McLaren and Doctrinal Uncertainty
First, McLaren undermines the clarity of Scripture by denying that biblical doctrine can be held with any degree of certainty. Certainty, of course, comes from clarity. Where there is no clarity, there is no certainty. And vice versa.
For the Reformers, it was because the Bible was clear that they were certain about its central message. But not so for McLaren, who says : "Certainty is overrated . . . History teaches us that a lot of people thought they were certain and we found out they weren't." And in another place :
When we talk about the word 'faith' and the word 'certainty,' we've got a whole lot of problems there. What do we mean by 'certainty'? . . . Certainty can be dangerous. What we need is a proper confidence that's always seeking the truth and that's seeking to live in the way God wants us to live, but that also has the proper degree of self-critical and self-questioning passion.
In A Generous Orthodoxy, McLaren even makes it a point to champion ambiguity. He writes,
A warning: as in most of my other books, there are places here where I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity. (pp. 22-23)
So it comes as no surprise, then, when he readily admits that he is not even sure if what he is espousing is correct.
If I seem to show too little respect for your opinions or thought, be assured I have equal doubts about my own, and I don't mind if you think I'm wrong. I'm sure I am wrong about many things, although I'm not sure exactly which things I'm wrong about. I'm even sure I'm wrong about what I think I'm right about in at least some cases. So wherever you think I'm wrong, you could be right. If, in the process of determining that I'm wrong, you are stimulated to think more deeply and broadly, I hope that I will have somehow served you anyway. (Ibid., 19-20)
For McLaren, benefit comes not from being right, but from dialoguing with those of all different viewpoints. Thus, there is great reward in always pursuing but never finally arriving at truth. Correctness in doctrine is something that cannot be attained—at least not with any degree of certainty. In McLaren's words, "The achievement of 'right thinking' therefore recedes, happily, farther beyond our grasp the more we pursue it. As it eludes us, we are strangely rewarded: we feel gratitude and love, humility and wonder, reverence and awe, adventure and homecoming"(Generous Orthodoxy, 296). In his view, Christians "must be open to the perpetual possibility that our received understandings of the gospel may be faulty, imbalanced, poorly nuanced, or downright warped and twisted . . . [and must] continually expect to rediscover the gospel" (Ibid., 261).
McLaren rightly anticipates the fact that theological conservatives will find such an approach to biblical doctrine unacceptable.
If, for you, orthodox means finally "getting it right" or "getting it straight," mine is a pretty disappointing, curvy orthodoxy. But if, for you, orthodoxy isn't a list of correct doctrines, but rather the doxa in orthodoxy means "thinking" or "opinion," then the lifelong pursuit of expanding thinking and deepening, broadening opinions about God sounds like a delight, a joy. (Ibid., 293-94)
By reducing biblical doctrines to "opinions," McLaren denies both Scripture's clarity and its authority. Because the Bible is unclear, the chorus of divergent interpretations are all granted equal validity. This means, then, that the authority of any one viewpoint (as that which is correct) vanishes, since all sides are equally reduced to nothing more than personal opinion.
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 thejournal .
2. McLaren and Interpretive Complexity
Second, McLaren sees such incredible degrees of complexity, with even the most straightforward biblical teachings, that he hopelessly obscures what the Bible makes simple. One example, of many possible, would be his vacillation with regard to homosexuality. Though the issue is clear cut in Scripture (Genesis 19; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; cf. Galatians 5:19-21; Ephesians 5:3-5; 1 Timothy 1:9, 10; Jude 7), McLaren remains unsure. He writes,
Frankly, many of us don't know what we should think about homosexuality. We've heard all sides but no position has yet won our confidence so that we can say "it seems good to the Holy Spirit and us." That alienates us from both the liberals and conservatives who seem to know exactly what we should think. Even if we are convinced that all homosexual behavior is always sinful, we still want to treat gay and lesbian people with more dignity, gentleness, and respect than our colleagues do. If we think that there may actually be a legitimate context for some homosexual relationships, we know that the biblical arguments are nuanced and multilayered, and the pastoral ramifications are staggeringly complex. We aren't sure if or where lines are to be drawn, nor do we know how to enforce with fairness whatever lines are drawn. (Online Source )
In other words, McLaren sees so much complexity—in both the biblical prohibition and the contemporary practice regarding homosexual behavior—that he is unable to respond definitively to the question of homosexuality. While such a blatant disregard for the straightforward teaching of Scripture hardly needs a response, Doug Wilson's rebuttal seems particularly apropos.
If someone were to ask me whether the Bible teaches that Jesus went to Capernaum, I would say yes, it does. I would not be in agony over the question. It is not the most important question, but it is clear. If someone were to ask if the apostle Paul taught that homosexual behavior (both male and female forms) is the dead end result of idolatry, I would say yes again. No agony in the exegesis whatever. There is only agony if you are lusting after respect from the world, which they will not give to you unless you are busy making plenty of room for their lusts. And that is what the emergent movement is doing—this is really all about sex. And, conveniently enough, this has the added benefit of making room for evangelical lusts. Son of a gun. All that agony paid off. (Online source )
For McLaren, other areas of ambiguity (or even outright disregard for the straightforward reading of Scripture) include doctrines like eternal punishment, eternal life, biblical inerrancy, divine sovereignty, divine masculinity, any doctrinal "distinctive," and any teaching that would exclude other denominations or even other religions from being enthusiastically embraced (cf. A Generous Orthodoxy, 19, 74, 81, 100, 113-14, 159-60). As he himself says, "The last thing I want is to get into nauseating arguments about why this or that form of theology (dispensational, covenant, charismatic, whatever) or methodology (cell church, megachurch, liturgical church, seeker church, blah, blah, blah) is right . . ." (Ibid., 19).
Even truth itself is presented as a concept too complicated for most people to understand.
[One] other issue is absolute truth. . . . The levels of complexity are so deep that a lot of people have no idea what they're talking about. . . . Sometime the words absolute truth mean for people that they never have to give a second thought. I believe that to be a human being, although we can know truth, we are never in a position where we shouldn't stand open to the possibility of correction. When people use the word truth, they can mean a lot of different things. . . . But when you use a word like this, you're entering into a philosophical discussion that has been around since the time of the Greeks and is a very profound, difficult, sophisticated discussion. (Relevant Magazine interview, issue 21)
Ironically, in his most recent book, The Secret Message of Jesus, McLaren asserts that there are certain areas of doctrine on which he will speak clearly. He writes,
In one of my previous books, I said that clarity is sometimes overrated and that intrigue is correspondingly undervalued. But here I want to say—clearly—that it is tragic for anyone, especially anyone affiliated with the religion named after Jesus, not to be clear about what Jesus' message actually was. (The Secret Message of Jesus, 7).
Throughout the rest of The Secret Message of Jesus, McLaren proceeds to present Jesus' Kingdom message in a way that most closely aligns with the non-eschatological, social activism of twentieth century liberalism. But such an understanding hardly accounts for many of the clear New Testament statements as to the true essence of the gospel message (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4; 2 Corinthians 5:17-21, for instance).
Moreover, by asserting that this "secret message" has just recently been discovered, McLaren is forced to deal with the question: "why hasn't this reading arisen sooner?" (Ibid., 211). While a refutation of McLaren's reasons (which are ultimately unconvincing) are outside the scope of this series, the following point remains: By overturning the historic understanding of Scripture with a new, secret message of Jesus, McLaren has again undermined the clarity of Scripture. Only a Bible that is impossibly ambiguous can fit in McLaren's neo-gnostic model.
3. McLaren and Propositional Truth
Third, McLaren dismisses propositional truth statements as a valid way for understanding the Bible. By denying the correspondence theory of truth, and instead embracing the approach of Lesslie Newbigin —that there really is no difference between facts and assumptions—McLaren and his colleagues are essentially driven to a place where no objective truth is possible (or at least possible to know definitively), and where any opinion is as good as any other.
McLaren is not the first to attempt this within evangelical circles. In his 1993 book, Revisioning Evangelical Theology, Stanley J. Grenz sets out a similar premise, in which "we as evangelicals not view theology merely as the restatement of a body of propositional truths" as we engage "in the quest for truth" (p. 79). Because any one understanding of doctrine may be incorrect, as a model of understanding reality, even when "informed by Scripture and by the mileposts of theological history—we must maintain a stance of openness to other models, being aware of the tentativeness and incompleteness of all such systems" (Ibid., p. 84). According to Grenz, propositional truth statements are the outmoded garments of modernism, which—like last year's clothing styles—desperately need to be discarded.
The problem with evangelical propositionalism is its often under-developed understanding of how the cognitive dimension functions within the larger whole of revelation. Therefore evangelical theologians tend to misunderstand the social nature of theological discourse. More than its advocates have cared to admit, evangelical theology has been the captive of the orientation to the individual knower that has reigned over the Western mindset throughout the modern era. But this orientation is now beginning to lose its grip. Therefore, if our theology is to speak the biblical message in our contemporary situation, we must shed the cloak of modernity and reclaim the more profound community outlook in which the biblical people of God were rooted. (Ibid., p. 73)
While such statements may satisfy postmodern philosophers, they do little to promote any confidence in the clarity of Scripture. In fact, they do exactly the opposite—making room for a type of biblical interpretation in which anyone's view is as good as anyone else's. It is this subjectivism, practically speaking, that poses such a serious threat. As Al Mohler rightly observes:
The Emergent movement represents a significant challenge to biblical Christianity. Unwilling to affirm that the Bible contains propositional truths that form the framework for Christian belief, this movement argues that we can have Christian symbolism and substance without those thorny questions of truthfulness that have so vexed the modern mind. The worldview of postmodernism—complete with an epistemology that denies the possibility of or need for propositional truth—affords the movement an opportunity to hop, skip and jump throughout the Bible and the history of Christian thought in order to take whatever pieces they want from one theology and attach them, like doctrinal post-it notes, to whatever picture they would want to draw. (Online Source )
McLaren and his emergent associates deny allegations of relativism. But, as John Frame notes , "although McLaren renounces relativism . . ., it is not clear when and how he would fight for the truth over against error." Practically speaking, then, his system embraces such doctrinal and hermeneutical subjectivism that, essentially, any view is accepted—as long as it shows tolerance to other views within the confines of dialogue. In order to keep the conversation going, this subjectivism begins with a denial that Scripture is clear, and that what it says is authoritative for faith and practice.
This is in keeping with its postmodern premise. The one essential, non-negotiable demand that postmodernism makes of everyone is this: No one is supposed to think he or she knows any objective truth. Because postmodernists often suggest that every opinion should be shown equal respect, it seems (on the surface) to be driven by a broad-minded concern for harmony and tolerance. It all sounds very charitable and altruistic. But what really underlies the postmodernist belief system is an utter intolerance for every worldview that makes any universal truth-claims—particularly biblical Christianity.
4. McLaren and Religious Ecumenism
The exclusivity of the Christian gospel is an unmistakable theme that runs throughout Scripture. In the Old Testament, the Lord plainly told the Hebrew people:
You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments. (Exodus 20:3-6; cf. 20:23; 23:24; 34:14; Leviticus 19:4; Joshua 23:7; 2 Kings 17:35)
In the New Testament, the message is equally clear. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me" (John 14:6). The apostle Peter proclaimed to a hostile audience, "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). The apostle John wrote, ". . . but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him" (John 3:36). Again and again, Scripture stresses that Jesus Christ is the only hope of salvation for the world. "For there is one God [and] one mediator also between God and men, [the] Man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). Only Christ can atone for sin, and therefore only Christ can provide salvation. "And the witness is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life" (1 John 5:11-12).
Of course, those truths are antithetical to the central tenet of postmodernism. They make exclusive, universal truth-claims, authoritatively declaring Christ the only true way to heaven and all other belief-systems erroneous. That is what Scripture teaches. It is also what the true church has proclaimed throughout her history. It is the message of Christianity. And it simply cannot be adjusted to accommodate postmodern sensitivities and immoralities.
McLaren, however, flatly rejects the straightforward exclusivism of Scripture. In his version of orthodoxy, Christians should "see members of other religions and non-religions not as enemies but as beloved neighbors, whenever possible, as dialogue partners and even collaborators" (A Generous Orthodoxy, 35). Thus, "having acknowledged and accepted the coexistence of other faiths, Christians should actually talk with people of other faiths, engaging in gentle and respectful dialogue. . . . We must assume that God is an unseen partner in our dialogues who has something to teach all participants, including us" (Ibid., 257-58). Later he writes:
To help Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, and everyone else experience life to the full in the way of Jesus (while learning it better myself), I would gladly become one of them (whoever they are) to whatever degree I can, to embrace them, to join them, to enter into their world without judgment but with saving love, as mine has been entered by the Lord. I do this because of my deep identity as a fervent Christian, not in spite of it. (Ibid., 264; cf. The Secret Message of Jesus, 4-8)
In light of his apparent openness to non-Christian faiths, it is not surprising that he finds all broadly Christian religions to also be equally valid. After discussing the "Jesus" of the Conservative Protestant, the Pentecostal, the Roman Catholic, the Eastern Orthodox, the Liberal Protestant, the Anabaptist, and the Liberation Theologian, he asks,
Why not celebrate them all? . . . Up until recent decades, each tribe felt it had to uphold one image of Jesus and undermine some or all of the others. What if, instead, we saw these various emphases as partial projections that together can create a hologram; a richer, multidimensional vision of Jesus?
What if we enjoy them all, the way we enjoy foods from differing cultures? Aren't we glad we can enjoy Thai food this week, Chinese next, Italian the following week, Mexican next month, and Khmer after than? What do we gain by saying that Chinese food is permissible, but Mexican food is poison? Isn't there nourishment and joy (and pleasure) to be had from each tradition? (Ibid., 66)
Without question, the Bible's claim that salvation is in Christ alone by faith alone is certainly out of harmony with the emergent notion of "tolerance." But it is, after all, just what the Bible plainly teaches. In the words of John Frame,
But again, McLaren is insensitive to spiritual warfare. The Bible is sharply negative toward false worship, the worship of idols, rather than the true God. Paul's missionary labors were not only positive, but also negative: to turn the Gentiles away from their idols to serve Christ (as in Acts 17:29-31, 1 Thessalonians 1:9). . . . Insofar as McLaren confuses the issue of false worship, he confuses something of vital importance to the God of Scripture. (Online Source )
Only by turning a blind eye to the Bible's clear teaching, can the broad ecumenism of McLaren be entertained with any enthusiasm.
This article originally appeared in Pulpit Magazine , an online magazine of the Shepherds' Fellowship , Grace Community Church .
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 Thesalonians. 2:10), and who are committed to "guard what has been entrusted" to them (1 Timothy 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! (Galatians 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" (Matthew 7:15). After all, those who distort the Scriptures do so to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).
https://www.gty.org/
Walang komento:
Mag-post ng isang Komento