Truth War: Is the EC really the New Skid on the Jock?

So my book arrived. The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception, by John Macarthur. Just curious - did anyone receive copies for review? I sure didn't. But no regrets in purchasing it. I said i was going to discuss the book but it probably deserves a few more posts because it tackles so many topics. And if you cant afford the book, then order John's interview called "Whats So Dangerous About the Emerging Church" which contains some of the same arguments. And they will send it to you free if it is your first time ordering from Grace to You - which is nice of them. Start here.

Before I say anything, I have a lot of respect for John Macarthur. I have benefitted from many of his books over the years. He is a man of integrity. So just because i dont agree with him on his appraisal of the emerging church doesnt mean I dont think highly of him. Because I do.

In a nutshell, John Macarthur brings the harshest criticism that has ever been delivered to the emerging church. Much harsher than I expected and blogged about some months ago. Much harsher than Don Carson, who took the time and effort to mention the positive contributions of the emerging church. Unlike Carson, Macarthur offers no positives at all. He sees the movement as heretical, an assault on the certainty of Scripture, inherently flawed, riddled with gnosticism, and equivalent to a poopslide on the garment of Christ.

Its that poopslide thing thats stuck in my mind. One could argue that he doesn't use the phrase "poopslide" or its equivalent, and "emerging church" in the same paragraph but the connection seems intentional to me. John Macarthur appeals to the letter of Jude in dealing with heretics. On Jude's advice to ministering to the committed, he
"employs his strongest and most vivid language: "On some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh" (v. 23 NASB) . . .
. . . The expression Jude employs is shocking. It is as course as any expression in the Scripture. Jude uses a Greek word for "garment" that signifies underwear and a word for "polluted" that means "stained in a filthy manner; spotted and stained by bodily functions". He is comparing the defilement of false teaching to soiled underwear." (Truth War, page 181)

Now thats great! You mean there is a word in the Bible for an 'underwear skid'? A POOPSLIDE?

Why didnt anyone tell us? This is the stuff that inspires one to study Greek in seminary. This is the stuff that inspires bloggers to study the Bible for themselves. This is the stuff that creates youth pastors and gives them material for Friday night.

Hey, did you hear John MacArthur attacked the Emerging Church?
Really?
Yeah, he called them a poopslide!
Poopslide? Did he mean a Hersheys Kiss or a Cadbury Swirl?
He didn't say.
They must be pretty back-slidden for him to say that?
Oh yeah, splattered over Skid Row.
I guess you could say the Emerging Church is the New Skid on the Jock?
Yeah, thats why he BLASTED them in his brief!

Well, you wont find such frivilous chatter on this blog, in fact, I try to avoid such things. But the question remains. Is the emerging church even remotely related to the heretics of Judes warning. Are we the soiled garments?

Read on.

Technorati Tags: emergent, emerging church, john macarthur, truth war

Here are a few skids that come up in Macarthur's criticisms:

Are we Cynical?
"In some circles within the visible church, cynicism is now virtually regarded as the most splendid of all virtues.I begin this book with a prime example of that cynicism, as seen in the Emerging Church movement" (Truth War, page 16)
Well maybe thats true of many churches, and I am sure the EC is not immune to bouts of cynicism at times, but most of the emerging churches i come in contact with are in love with the body of Christ and are excited about how God is using them to impact their community. I just returned from a meeting in Frankfurt with leaders of emerging church movements in Germany - no cynicism there at all. But sometimes they can be critical, especially if spiritual or ecclesiastic abuse has happened.

Cynical of the Bible? No
Cynical of some people's insistence on the singular correctness and superiority of their first-world western view on the Bible? Maybe.
Cynical of televangelists? Sometimes
But then so is John Macarthur.
But lets not get too defensive here. Do you think Emerging Churches you have experienced are cynical?

Relativism?
“The thing about the emerging church is there are no rules, there is no doctrine and no official connection. Right? Its completely amorphous. Every guy does exactly what he wants to in his own eyes. And that is very, very dangerous.” John Macarthur, "Whats so Dangerous About the Emerging Church? "MP3
Well, actually .. . there are rules, doctrine and official connections. Are all those who do not hold to a modern Cartesian view of objective reality automatically suspect of relativisism? Its here that Lesslie Newbigin and John Macarthur clash. A reading of Lesslie Newbigin's "Proper Confidence" would be helpful.

False teachers?
Well there probably are a few floating around and I hope their false teaching gets exposed. There certainly are false teachers in every other movement and stream of Christianity. Their teachings are POOPSLIDES! Thats why we should be on guard. And John Macarthur's exposition on Jude is actually quite good and useful, We should examine ourselves and be open to correction. Macarthur names a few teachers that he feels are heretical. Some have made a defence. A friend of John Armstrong, Rev P. Andrew Sandlin, feels that Armstrong was misrepresented in Truth War and has written a response called Dr John Macarthur is Certainly Wrong. And Dan Kimball defends himself. I am still waiting to see the response from others in the book emerge online. John Franke, Rob Bell's wife, Brian MacLaren . . . Prince Charles. Yes . . Prince Charles!

Apathy?
Maybe sometimes. But we have no right to be. I would like to think we are challenging the believers of Christ to take his mandate seriously, to fully embrace the call of Christ for the world and to live under the cross. We are hopeful that God is reconciling all things to himself through Christ and we are thrilled that He is partnering with us in the gospel. We might be disappointed in the stagnation of the church in obeying God. But who has the right to be apathetic?

Bad Language?
Well, its true there are words used in the emerging church that would have caused great offense in Spurgeon's church of the 19th century. Or even my mother's church. And certainly John Macarthur's church. But its equally true that words not considered offensive in the past are forbidden today. Language changes. Spurgeon, for example, would have not talked about "nigger entertainments" at an emerging church today without being rebuked and quoted Scripture. Mark Driscoll gets singled out in Macarthur's criticism but in Mark's defence, his choice of words are not offensive to his congregation. I have a theory on this but thats for another post.

Flawed?
Well, its not perfect. Yes, maybe it is flawed. But probably not in the way Macarthur describes. Macarthur says the "emerging church is inherently flawed" but he when he tries to describe what drives it, he says "The emerging Church began as a self-conscious effort to make Christianity more suitable to a postmodern culture" (page 17). Ahhhh . . NO . . . mindless accommodation to the world, whatever we call it, strips us of our prophetic message. I believe he misunderstands the goals and purposes of this movement. Our inherent flaws probably lie elsewhere but in the cases where syncretism and accommodation have happened, lets try to correct it.

Gnosticism?
If the Emerging Church really WAS guilty of gnosticism, then Macarthur would be justified in whipping out a can of JUDE from his back pocket . . . which is what he does in his book. But I have been scratching my head on this . . thinking to myself . . . how can we be accused of a deficient view of the humanity of Christ when we continually appeal to the incarnation of the Son of God as a primary motif of and motivation for mission in the emerging culture? As the Father has sent me, so I send you. He was fully God and fully man which is why we can wholeheartedly agree with the ancient ecumenical creeds and find a rigorous precedent in the Scriptures for godly participation in the emerging culture.

And regarding an incomplete view of the Trinity, it seems to me that emerging church emphasis towards a Trinitarian missiology is a corrective to a Trinitarianism assaulted by modernity's dismembering of the Godhead. Systematic theology, anyone? I have said before that at the heart of the emerging church is a trinitarian missiology. Alan Roxburgh writes of this. We have made some gains in this area away from gnosticism and towards a fuller understanding of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We are not happy with the idea of the Holy Spirit as a retired author who now spends his time as the librarian for Jesus and PA for God the Father . . . when he is needed . . . which is not as often as the old days.

However, gnosticism in its many subtle forms is present in all churches so we should not say that it is absent. But is it MORE present in the emerging church than in other movements?

There are other criticisms and issues but I should start another post. But in case you were wondering . .. YOU ARE NOT POOP!! As new kinds of apostles in a new culture with a timeless story, emerging church missionaries are the dregs of the world and the scum of the earth and we share in the sufferings of Christ which includes being misunderstood. And although Macarthur's words below were not intended for the emerging church, and dont appear in the book, I see them as relevant here.

"Have you experienced animosity, hostility, rejection, bitterness, alienation, ostracism, prejudice, or outright persecution from representing and advocating what is right? If so, that’s a sign that you belong to One who suffered the same way for the same reason.
The fact is, to the worldly, you as a Christian “have become as the scum of the world, the dregs of all things” (1 Cor. 4:13). You’re a threat to their belief that this world is all that’s worth living for." John MacArthur, GracetoYou

Well, don't all jump on me AT ONCE!!! I don't expect this tiny blog post to solve any issues and I dont want to dismiss Macarthur's criticisms without a good look around. We should talk more on this. Which topic in particular do you think is worth pursing?

Comments

[iMonk]

Andrew, I received a review copy a couple of months ago and wrote one of the first reviews on the blogosphere. I can just say amen, but would add the book is poorly written, poorly researched and without Macarthur's name on the front, wouldn't deserve any serious ink. Freshman level analysis.

[andrew jones]

Hi Michael.

i read your entry and really liked your tone - respectful.

i guess i would like a little processing to happen before we all come to a conclusion, even if it is the same conclusion you have arrived at.

[andrew]

here is michael's review at iMonk.

link

[Darin]

TSK - thanks for the review. Thank you even more for the manner in which you've responded. I am reading The Truth War right now - and agree wholeheartedly with your take.

[chad]

“The thing about the emerging church is there are no rules, there is no doctrine and no official connection. Right?"

That sounds like a good description of my "mother" church...the good ole SBC.

While I think cynicism may be a quality exhibited in the generations that are usually present around the EC, the few churches I have been a part of are actually celebrating that they have moved past cynicism.

Macarthur's book is naming more characteristics of the 18-34 generation than he is of the Emerging movement. I also think that he probably unfairly draws from mainly American sources, and doesn't touch the European/Kiwi/Aussie contribution (which is huge).

I agree with your statements involving the Trinitarianism of the EC. If anything, the EC is moving towards a more accurate creedal statement than the majority of "free" churches that are in the US have.

Thanks for the review Andrew...I need to get a copy of this.

[lgeraty]

John is one of those authors that I either absolutely love or absolutely loathe!

I have developed a method of reading his books. If it is on subjects he knows something about (N.T. studies, Reformed Theology, etc.), his books can be great. If the book is on subjects he is entirely confused about (charismatic issues, the emerging church, etc.), I simply chuckle.

Of course, that is just me.

[steve lewis]

Andrew,
Thanks for the review. As with your review of Carson a while back, I admire your generosity in hearing out and considering critiques which don't seem to have been offered in the same spirit. Not having read the book yet, I don't know the answer to this - did MacArthur take the time to attend any emerging churches or have conversations with emerging leaders? If he's going to bring a public rebuke like this, it would seem that some private efforts at correction would be the bibilical thing to do.

It's ironic to me that he levels complaints about gnosticism and cynicism. Primarily because whether they are true in part or in whole, this may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black. One could call MacArthur cynical about some of the more helpful and refreshing changes that the emerging church has introduced. Anyway, I don't mean to blast him back - I just wish that someone with critical views like these would actually get to know the real people involved, and hear their hearts of love for God and the peoples he created. I'm guessing they wouldn't be so quick to run their mouths.

[John santic]

great review...I'll borrow it to read. I see much of the reaction from the likes of mcarthur and others as no surprise. new ways of being church (emergent, missional) that are birthed from a passion for missional engagement and the gospel serve at the same time as a critique to existing and often impotent structures....and people get defensive about that, especially when the deep ecclesiological, missiological and hermeneutic questions surface.

[andrew]

yeah. the reaction is similar among many people - which is why i am interested to understand the reasoning processes and miscommunications that are going on in many circles.

i think it would be profitable to push it around a little.

hey - i would really like some fundamentalists to jump in here and back up john macarthur - help us understand where he is coming from.

[Tom]

Really helpful post. Thanks, Andrew.

[lyn]

Thanks for this review, and your very well put response. In regards to what John has written I think most of his criticisms you can equally argue about in regards to IC. I think, as you wrote, we just have to have grace.

Sorry, but I can't jump in and back up John, I'd rather be a bit of poop! :)

[Tom Powell]

Thank you for the review (and the ear-to-ear grin the word poopslide caused!)
I think that Macarthur's criticisms are valid to the degree that they are valid in all manifestations of the church, we will drift to them if we aren't centered on Christ. We all have to be careful of these things - but it seems callous to lob these accusations exclusively at the EC.
BTW, how is that Nike shirt flawed? It is fantastic! :)

[ally simpson]

nice thoughts andrew, i posted a brief intro to the book on my blog with the intention of writing a full review but kind of stalled in the book..........i still struggle with Macarthur, he is "up there somewhere" looking down in me when i read him, maybe im just stupid!! Anyway i do think a lot more of Carson's book, he is less harsh for sure...........mmm maybe il think about that review!

[andrew]

yeah- i think more of carsons book also.

and Tom, the Nike swoosh is a subliminal skid if you look at the shape of it. for him who has eyes to see.

[Jason J. Powell]

It seems lately, I could care less what the hyper-right think anymore. The politial right threw out a tremendously painful rebuke at former pres. Jimmy Carter recently when they called him "increasingly irrelevant"....I disagree with that totally, but it seems to me that MaCarthur and the rest who keep hurling insults at something they know nothing about are themselves becoming "increasingly irrelevant".

There's work to be done...if they don't get it....who cares?!?!?! I'm moving forward, pressing on to what's infront of me and forgetting what lies behind (hey...who said that?-- oh right)

next

[iggy]

Andrew,

Thanks!

Blessings,
iggy

[Mark E]

Mc Arthur has some great commentaries, but as a commentator on the church, his 'grace' leaves a lot to be desired.

Does Christ really want us to devote hours to critiquing each other, or would He prefer those hours to be spent on mission?

[andrew]

good point, mark. and people smarter than me tell me i should not waste too much time on this kind of thing.

i am a little concerned about the fallout. when carson's book came out, there was a lot of suspicion towards EC missionaries all over the world - some losing financial support - and quite unnecessarily so.

but it seems that this book will not have the same impact.

[Craig S.]

It saddens me that a man I respect deeply has taken such a view of the EC. I am reminded of Christ's words in Mark 9:38-41 For John to be so far off the mark in his critiscisms when he has been so helpful in other areas is a real mystery. I tend to think it won't have much currency and concur with Mark E. Not sure there is much more that can be said that hasn't been stated already. thanks Andrew for your review.

[Rick]

Thanks, Andrew, for your kind response to yet another attack (which I haven't yet read). I've been blessed by the responses I've seen from you and Brian to brothers who need to manifest the grace of which they speak in greater amounts. As to "poopslide," that's an interesting translation....You're right about the youth workers' joy.
I don't know the Kiwi version of "Good on ya, Mate," but that's my word for you today.

[Truth Seeker]

AS someone who has read Macarthur and have learned immensely from him I understand his sentiments about the EC movement. For those that criticize him for making statements without talking privately to those in the EC, that argument is unfounded. He does not have to privately discuss public things that the EC or any movement is doing in the public sphere. He spoke on that which was written and has been presented in the public light.

When the EC started and many of the leaders starting accusing the fundementalists of certain things, did any of the EC leaders go to them fundementalist leader in private and discuss their concerns and get their opinion on the matter? I am confident that many, if any, did that. So why do you place some standard on Macarthur that the EC movement itself has failed to live up to?

Macarthur has spoken, like Carson, on publically available material and events. He is entitled to his own opinion and he has chosen to make them known publically. Some of what he says I disagree with but he is entitled to make his opinions known. If you disagree write a book, a journal article, letter, etc. to counter him and to engage in the dialogue that the EC preaches about. Let's stop bashing the man for his views and engage him...I dare ya! :)

Blessings,

[Matt Stephens]

Something that might shed some light on MacArthur's presuppositions is the audio series you can listen to on the Master's Seminary website. A year or so ago, they hosted an EC-bashing speaking series, which they recorded and podcasted. I listened to all of them, and the main piece of useful information to you all would probably be the fact that MacArthur et al. view the EC through the lens of primarily Brian McLaren and NT Wright. And for serious, "ungenerous" orthodox scholars, his objection to the New Perspective (which he sees as flourishing in the EC, among other of Wright's writings, with which I happen to concur) is understandable.

The other point I find interesting is that, in my understanding, the EC is, to put it simply, very postmodern. The confusion surrounding postmodernism's definition and its various manifestations (economic, cultural, linguistic, philosophical) has resulted in a blanketing of postmodernism as a set of conclusions which some postmoderns have drawn from certain philosophers. What the po-mo critics do not see is the many ways in which postmodern thought and circumstance actually reinvigorate the Christian doctrine and community (I presented my case for this in a recent interview with some of the faculty at Trinity EDS).

To make a long story short, there are strains of far-left liberalism in the EC (the same as there are such strains in global north mainline protestantism), as well as strains of moderate-conservativism. The big question is, Who are the EC critics viewing as the spokespeople for the EC? Who are the prominent authors identifying with EC? There is some speculation as to whether Driscoll and Acts 29 Network are even "emerging". Also, the whole house church movement and new monasticism seems to be mostly under their radar, insofar as it is connected with the EC.

[Phil Wyman]

Andrew,

Good response. Although being a non-reformed Pentecostal Emergent I've been slammed by this guy more than once, and I am less benificent than yourself. I pastored in Southern California for 14 years, and could spot a MacArthur disciple within a few paragraphs.

For those who do not hold to his narrow doctrinal positions he has been far less than generous through the years. John Amstrong once taught beside MacArthur, and still remains a solid reformed theologian - this in itself shows the excessive narrowness of MacArthur's views. I had a discussion with John Armstrong a couple weeks ago about the book. It was John Armstrong's rejection of this extreme narrowness which has placed him as public enemy #1 in the book.

I have yet to read the book, but I followed MacArthur's blog writings a bit as the book was in development, and wrote about this at that time. I have seen a small rising in the tide of angry responses against Emergent, and this attitude is something the emergent conversation should strive against - lest we become like our enemies. But for myself, I have wondered (publicly) if we should reconsider a definition of heresy which includes behavioral activity in opposition to the Gospel of Christ. If so. perhaps MacArthur himself falls under the heretical banner as a consistent cause of division in the body of Christ.

That's my 2¢, and considering the dollar against the pound, and the fact that I'm Pent-Emergent it's not worth much these days. ;-)

[Heidi Renee]

Great post Andrew - we always giggled as little kids when the preacher would quote "we are but dust" (of course we always hear "butt dust") - but never did we imagine in our wildest dreams that Jude held the keys to our adolescent gigglings!

[andrew]

ok - control yourself, heidi . ..

Phil - i think the division part is troubling. and the fact there is no or little theology of partnership in working in teams that may believe differently.
i know, from putting mission teams together, that there is a place to call off the "war" and work together for the gospel. otherwise, mission teams cannot stay or work together.