MacArthur on the Emerging Church

My friend Nate Busenitz recently posted these comments at http://faithandpractice.blogspot.com/

"Why was John MacArthur so hard-hitting? And was it valid?

To answer that we have to look at what Brian McLaren is saying. So I put together a brief summary from his book A Generous Orthodoxy. (For the lengthy version of this list from which I’ve drawn these points, along with page numbers and additional explanation, click here.)


Here is a list of McLaren's views in A Generous Orthodoxy:

- McLaren downplays “doctrinal distinctives” as more-or-less worthless. Outside of the essentials of the Apostle’s Creed, which McLaren affirms, other theological arguments (and the divisions caused by such arguments) are in McLaren’s words “nauseating.”

- He encourages all segments of broader Christianity (from Othrodox, to Catholic, to Protestant, and so on) to stop fighting and start celebrating what they have in common. He also contends that Christians should not show disdain for other world religions (such as Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.) but should dialogue with them as collaborators.

- His approach is heavily influenced by a postmodern mindset, which is postevangelical, postconservative, and postliberal. He claims that his approach lies beyond absolutism and relativism, and is not found in absolutes but in conversation and interchange.

- McLaren openly admits that his book is not objective, but instead is most harsh towards conservative Protestants (especially Calvinistic Fundamentalists), and most open to groups like Roman Catholics.

- McLaren accuses conservative Protestants of having dethroned Jesus as Lord, and instead promoted the Apostle Paul to the head and teacher of the church. Moreover, according to McLaren, conservative Protestants are guilty of viewing Paul through the eyes of Luther and Calvin, which is why Paul is interpreted to sound so much like a lawyer.

- McLaren accuses conservative Protestant “evangelists” of overemphasizing hell, overemphasizing eternity, and making the gospel sound more like the consumer-driven products of “every company and political party.”

- McLaren compares doctrinal distinctives such as the five points of Calvinsim to cigarettes, because he considers their use to be habit-forming and hazardous.

- He denounces the idea of God’s sovereignty (in terms of God being “all-powerful” and “all-controlling”) because, to use McLaren's words, it reduces human beings to “plastic chessmen.”

- McLaren faults conservative Protestants with viewing the Bible as a modern-day answer book (like an encyclopedia) and for using it simply to fight those with those whom they disagree. He also finds it sadly ironic that such groups would use non-biblical words (like inerrancy and infallibility) to refer to the authority of the Bible.

- McLaren disagrees with the typical sermonizing that passes for preaching in today’s churches. Instead, he argues for something with a lot more drama, artistry, and spontaneity than long speeches that develop expository prose.

- McLaren also downplays any type of systematic theology (referring negatively to systematic theologies as modern cathedrals). Instead, he promotes a narrative theology (specifically that of James McLendon) in which ethics, doctrine (as seen in practice), and mission are emphasized.

- McLaren’s approach to “orthodoxy” is an “emerging” approach characterized by doctrinal humility (as opposed to doctrinal certainty), a willingness to question any theological tradition (especially the Reformed “tradition”), and a worldview that sees life and theology as an unfolding story or journey.

- McLaren concludes A Generous Orthodoxy by embracing and promoting the doctrinal uncertainty and ambiguity that characterizes the emerging approach. He finds joy in the ultimate uncertainty of beauty.

In summary, then, McLaren represents almost everything that Dr. MacArthur and The Master’s Seminary stand against.


So was Dr. MacArthur’s hard-hitting criticism valid?

In my opinion, absolutely (to use a term McLaren would decry).

Why? Well, not only does Dr. MacArthur have a right, as a seminary president, to come out strong against those whom he feels threaten the fundamentals upon which his institution is based. But also because, in this case, I believe his concerns were both biblical and accurate."