CRN.Info and Analysis

Michael iMonk Spencer has posted his review of an advance copy of The Truth War, a new book by CRN/Slice idol Johnnie Mac, attacking the ECM. It seems that the apples over at Slice 2.0 don’t fall too far from the tree, since the MacMan seems to have taken the low road and decided that no real scholarship need be wasted in researching Christians who just don’t “do church right” for his tastes (whether they be ECM, charismatic, or what-not).

It’s no wonder CRN idolizes this guy (that, and his dislike for any music written in the past 100 years). His facts-be-damned approach to anything outside of direct scriptural exposition is appalling, despite the dissembling of his sycophants.

Excerpts from iMonk’s review:

When he is expounding scripture, Dr. Macarthur is at his strongest. This book contains an excellent study of portions of the book of Jude.

When Dr. Macarthur leaves his specialty of exposition, he is a different writer, one far less commendable. I am in no way insulting him with that observation. I deeply respect and appreciate his ministry.

The weak aspect of this book comes when Dr. Macarthur steps into areas where he makes broad judgments about the targets of his criticism. While not as flawed as the broad brush caricature of all charismatics that appeared in Charismatic Chaos, The Truth War contains large examples of short-hand analysis controlled by the author’s presuppositions.

For example, on page 6-7, Macarthur surveys the history of philosophy in two pages, going from the Greeks to Henry James in three paragraphs. This will be more than adequate for those already in the hunt against apostate postmodernists, but there is an obvious problem with this kind of intellectual shorthand.

Similarly, modernity, in its entirety, is described and diagnosed in a page and a half (9-10).

Postmodernism gets much more ink. Macarthur is confident that all postmodernism can be described as a tendency to avoid certainty about the truth. While this may be a description that touches on the truth of some postmodern thought, it’s simply, again, too little. Of course, Dr. Macarthur is not expounding postmodernism. He is expounding Jude and other passages of scripture. Keep that in mind, and such abbreviations won’t be surprising.

The emerging church is the main target of Macarthur’s polemic. Throughout the book, Macarthur returns to examples of the extreme truth-rejecting, certainty-denying tendencies of the emerging church. Of course, for Macarthur, the emerging church is an entity much like a denomination. [Does this complete misconception sound familiar? Anyone?]

Anyone who knows the emergent church knows that none of these [...] persons represents anything close to the entirety of “the emerging church.” While Mclaren is an easy- and deserving- target, it appears that almost nothing is known of Driscoll except Don Miller’s description of him, a description Driscoll has commented on at length in an interview with Michael Horton, and if anything is known of Pagit or Bell beyond what one could read at Ken Silva’s website, it’s not obvious here. The research level in the book seems deficient for a serious study.

In other words, the worst of the emerging movement is told with a few citiations and anecdotes. Again, engagement of this sort isn’t Macarthur’s goal. He wants to briefly set his sights, then fire away with a full scriptural polemic. He fires at some good targets. Mclaren’s comments are often beyond irritating, and demonstrate why I have never met an emerging sympathizer that would endorse Mclaren as more than a gadfly whose stock drops every year. But Macarthur also makes a complex, nuanced, multi-layered phenomenon in evangelicalism look simplistic and monolithic. It’s not, but that isn’t really important in this book.

Oddly, Macarthur puts the emerging in the same categories as the seeker sensitive, Purpose-Driven churches, classical liberals in the PCUSA and other movements that few would associate with the emerging movement’s rejection of megachurch pragmatism. I believe this book provides further evidence that the critics of the emerging church have some accurate targets in view, but don’t understand how the typical emerging, missional community is generally far different from other contemporary, non-fundamentalist churches. [emphasis mine]

Some of us who personally experience being declared apostate and are treated as unbelievers have an idea of what is at stake in this approach.

I am not in any way writing to defend what Dr. Macarthur condemns. I am not a spokesperson for the emerging church, though apparently that perception is why I received a copy of the book. Many of those persons he mentions deserve to be criticized and questioned. But many also deserve to be heard more carefully and understood better. The research here is not up to the levels of even modest academic examination of the influence of postmodernism or the truth about the emerging, missional conversation in all its expressions. [emphasis mine]

HT to Bob Hyatt, who has his own thoughts summing up Dr. No-Grace-To-You MacArthur.

Thanks, Bob!

UPDATE: Here’s Christopher Sowers’ f/u article on the review.

Paul Walker made a response to our article entitled “Double standard” here at CRN.  While he did clarify that the people removed were not taken out because of their “emergent” ideologies, he failed to answer our question.  Why is it ok to remove people from a church over Matthew 18, but not even contact “emergent” leaders before calling them apostate?  Anyhow, Paul put a spin on the article, saying that he was like a proud dad, bragging on his kid.  However, I feel that he is not conveying the gravity of the situation.

When someone is removed from a church, it is not an opportunity for the church to brag about how biblical you are.  It should be a time of mourning and grieving in the whole community over what you just had to do.  You are basically saying this close brother has fallen and is now being turned over to Satan.  That shouldn’t be something to write a positive blog about, unless you are writing with a hope that this person will be restored.  I did not hear that tone with Paul’s article at all.

The question still stands unanswered.

Here’s an article from Sweden’s English-Language Newspaper:

Phelps praises homophobic crimes, including murder. When controversial Swedish minister Ã…ke Green was convicted of inciting hatred of homosexuals following an anti-gay sermon, Phelps saw red and turned his attention to Sweden.

“You’re doomed to spend eternity in hell,” he said. “All you Swedes and your Swedish king and his family.”

As part of the campaign Phelps launched the hateful website God Hates Sweden , which attacks the royal family and delights in the loss of Swedish lives in the 2004 tsunami disaster.

Princess Madeleine has been the main recipient of the sect’s abuse, Expressen reports.

“I know that this is happening all the time. There have been strange faxes containing all sorts of terms of abuse,” court spokeswoman Nina Eldh told the newspaper.

The court’s lawyers have so far failed in their atempts to call a halt to the site’s anti-Swedish hate campaign.

Expressen’s attempts to secure a comment from the group were met with resistence from an agitated female representative.

“We hate Sweden! Don’t call here again,” she said.

OK.

No, I didn’t get this Slice 2.0.  Worse, I got this from a popular news aggregator site, where I just have to wonder what type of witness this gives for Christ.  It got me to thinking a little bit, though.

On one hand, Fred Phelps’ over-the-top, anti-Christian behavior is so wildly off the deep end that virtually no Christians support it (assuming, hopefully correctly, that CRN/Slice wouldn’t condone it), and even non-Christians without pre-existing malice toward Christianity would realize that it is not typical of Christian belief and action.

On the other hand, this type of behavior expands the boundaries of bad behavior and may numb us to beliefs and behaviors which are repugnant in the same vein, but just not as extreme.  And so, in a way, Fred Phelps provides cover to the CRN/Slice’s, EmergentNo’s, Lighthouse’s and other anti-Christlike sites which are just as wrong, but not as spectacularly so…