February 14, 2007
-
"the truth war"
My mom sent me info about this book - The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception by John MacArthur. Here's the blurb: In our postmodern era, a war is being waged against truth. Absolute Truth is argued away as a belief of the past, replaced by cultural relativism and uncertainty. Surprisingly, the world is not the only enemy. Pastors and Christians have fallen prey to subtle deception and are leading others astray. Dr. John MacArthur sounds the alarm in this call to apologetic arms. He examines how the Emerging Church movement, incorrect exegesis, apostasy, and false teaching are all attacking truth and denying Christ’s lordship. Reserve your copy now, arm yourself with the Word of God, and join the battle for truth today!
One thing that is pretty noticeable in the blurb (and I presume in the book) is a sense of alarm - notice the words "war", "enemy", "fallen prey", "sounds the alarm", "call to apologetic arms", "attacking", "arm yourself", and "join the battle". Of course, Christianity in America today tends to be polarized with respect to these words. If you're an American Christian, you may tend toward one of two responses upon reading the blurb.
(1) MacArthur's right - there's a deception and a war going on - a battle for truth - we need to get back to the Bible, arm ourselves apologetically, and eliminate heresy from our midst!
or
(2) MacArthur's gone off his little fundamentalist rocker again - all this talk of "war" and "battle" is precisely the problem with the church today - instead of showing unity and love to the world, we take up arms and fight to the death among ourselves about doctrinal nitpicks.
Where do you fall on this (admittedly slightly overstated) spectrum?
You probably know which view makes more sense to me. (1) Though my habitual thought on this (my Marcius Cato ecclesiotheraputic meta-statement) is: "what we need in the Church today is not less doctrine but more love."
But what I really wanted to mention about this book/blurb is this. In the human body there is a special collection of organs and cells that make up the "immune system". When foreign material of any type enters the body, the system is triggered and "alarms" the rest of the body, stimulating killer cells, repair cells, tissue inflammation, etc etc. It is a very sensitive part of the body, responding to tiny little "problems" like a single virus or bacteria swimming through the bloodstream.
It is also an extremely important part of the body, because if these "tiny little problems" were ignored, they would establish a hold on some part of the body, and by the time the body noticed that something was wrong, it would be too late - the bacteria or viri would be swarming through the body and the person would be dead.
Now Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12:
But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually just as He wills.
For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.
If the foot says, "Because I am not a hand, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body. And if the ear says, "Because I am not an eye, I am not a part of the body," it is not for this reason any the less a part of the body.
If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were hearing, where would the sense of smell be?
But now God has placed the members, each one of them, in the body, just as He desired.
If they were all one member, where would the body be? But now there are many members, but one body. And the eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you"; or again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you."
On the contrary, it is much truer that the members of the body which seem to be weaker are necessary; and those members of the body which we deem less honorable, on these we bestow more abundant honor, and our less presentable members become much more presentable, whereas our more presentable members have no need of it. But God has so composed the body, giving more abundant honor to that member which lacked, so that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.
And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it.
Now you are Christ's body, and individually members of it.
So it seems pretty obvious that some Christians have been given the (gift? role? interest? talent? task? responsibility? even, genes??) of "sniffing out" what is true and what is false doctrinally... and they are not to be shunned for their sensitivity, but rather supported and listened to. Meanwhile other Christians have been given the (gift? role? interest? talent? task? responsibility? genes??) of "showing love to all men" and "accepting one another" without much suspicion of whether they might accidentally be "accepting wolves in sheep's clothing."... again, rather than being shunned for their indiscriminate bleeding-heart-ness, they should be encouraged in their role.
Yet the encouragement and support should be tempered with wisdom from the "other types" of Christians. The ideal church will have BOTH (plus more) types of Christians... the "doctrinally-sensitive" types helping the "oozing-compassionate" types to wisely discriminate truth from error, and the "oozing-compassionate" types helping the "doctrinally-sensitive" types to make sure they're putting their knowledge into loving action.
Example #1 - 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, 19-20 - But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ. For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. ... For you, being so wise, tolerate the foolish gladly. For you tolerate it if anyone enslaves you, anyone devours you, anyone takes advantage of you, anyone exalts himself, anyone hits you in the face.
Paul explains to the Corinthians that they are way too "accepting" - when someone comes and preaches "another Jesus" or "a different gospel", they blindly and naively accept it!... and Paul writes to them to help them be more discriminating.
Example #2 - Galatians 2:1-10 ... "they only asked us to remember the poor--the very thing I also was eager to do."
Paul had gone to check with the Jerusalem apostles to make sure the doctrine he was preaching was correct. They agreed with him that it was correct, but they wanted to make sure that he was "remembering the poor" - i.e. putting his knowledge of the truth into action. And of course, Paul was gung-ho about that.
Thoughts? Comments? Personal experiences?
Comments (10)
I love the idea of the body of Christ having an immune system!! (Which probably indicates with statistical certainty that I am more towards position (1) of your spectrum.) A couple weeks ago I was in a group discussion of a book which used some ( about 3 words in <10 pages) of the "battle" language in its introduction--I didn't even notice, because I agree that there is a war going on, but one of the other members of the group picked up on it and was disturbed by the idea of fighting as a metaphor related to determining/maintaining a group's position on essential issues. It really bothered me that people could *not* think that a battle of ideas is happening and affecting just about every Christian organization in existence...I thought maybe it was because of my mathematical background and the fact that I like to think in black and white, and it's nice to think that maybe that perspective could have value in the Kingdom, and isn't just me overreacting to minor differences of opinion.
While you're talking about the poor, I remember reading somewhere that more than most other things - war, homosexuals, shellfish, even possibly hell - the Bible talks about helping out the poor. I think it's interesting how some people pay attention only to certain parts sometimes.
Next. If you're talking about the whole body, then doesn't that include the atheists and agnostics and whatnot? Remember, e. coli may be extremely toxic to much of the body, but if you haven't got it where it belongs you're in a whole lot of trouble. I'm not sure quite what I'm saying, just a thought.
~Sol
By "the body," I think Tim means (and certainly I do) "the Body of Christ," the Spirit-bonded invisible union of all believers. But I'm sure the logic also applies somewhat to society as a whole, as well. Although I think society is a broken-down body, and one that is only getting propped up with machinery, rather than organic-wholistic remedies.
On the spectrum, I probably have to tend more toward #1, but I mostly agree with #2, taking in a vacuum. If, however, they are calling the existence of absolute Truth "a doctrinal nitpick," I would have to vehemently disagree. Christianity is highly dependent on the concept of absolute, objective Truth. We have to at least agree that there IS Truth to be found, and then secondly that God has revealed it to us.
In #1, I do think it unfortunate to use so much war language, which is only ever used in the New Testament with regards to the devil, the (impersonal) world system, and for training oneself (war against the flesh). The 'war' is against these 'powers and authorities,' primarily in our own lives. Not against flesh and blood -- too often such language involves some spillage of organized 'warfare' onto people and groups. I disagree with this type of warfare completely.
Also, it is important to ascertain the literal and intended meanings of the statement, "Absolute Truth is argued away as a belief of the past..." Again, too often I think two different meanings get read into this and confounded; that Truth exists objectively, and that we can be absolutely certain of it. The first I agree with whole-heartedly, but the second is what the modern-post-modern spectrum disproves.
I think the premise for constructive dialogue has to start with a belief that there is something to be gained -- ie, that objective Truth exists! Once there, there are many more basic things that could be easily added to a common Christian framework. We must rely on each other to be sincere, and agree to the premise that we can learn something about objective Truth. If someone has firmly decided to sit in doubt all day long, all their life, then there is nothing to be gained from discussion.
Perhaps if we can get past the alarmist/loaded language of the blurb (and possibly the book), there would be something to learn from it. We need to keep in mind that there have been critical issues at stake for millenia, and God is still in control. "Certainty" is also one of the loaded terms; I think we are always trusting someone's word. And faith is not sight. Just because some people say "seeing is believing" doesn't mean we should say "trusting is seeing." Trusting and seeing are two different sources of knowledge, but we need and use both every day.
also, good passages from I Cor 11 -- wise thoughts from the apostle, and definitely applicable.
Objective truth is interesting. I guess it's hard for me to wrap my head around the idea, certainly, but "truth" is an odd thing to me. Do good and evil exist? In my head, not objectively. Does the world exist? Um . . . probably, but I try never to be -too- certain. It raises interesting questions, which is what I'm most fascinated by.
~Sol
Thanks for your thoughts, everyone!
Sol, one thing that comes to mind is that at some point you will need to come to enough of a conclusion on these things to act... It's like a ship in a storm, suddenly seeing land with a harbor within sailing distance. But the captain and the crew are just "not sure" if that's the port they were aiming for... so they 'remain agnostic', watching it recede into the distance.... and they end up sinking in the open sea. At some point so-called "agnosticism" becomes a choice in itself, to reject... these things you mentioned: truth, good and evil, reality, and God.
Mulletrooster, I'm sure you've heard of B.B.Warfield, who was once met by a lady during the week of a General Assembly of Presbyterians. "Dr Warfield, I hear that there is going to be trouble at the Assembly. Do let us pray for peace." Dr. Warfield replied, "I am praying that if they do not do what is right, there may be a mighty battle."
Was Warfield right in so praying? What do the scriptures teach?
Mulletrooster wrote: "In #1, I do think it unfortunate to use so much war language, which is only ever used in the New Testament with regards to the devil, the (impersonal) world system, and for training oneself (war against the flesh). The 'war' is against these 'powers and authorities,' primarily in our own lives. Not against flesh and blood -- too often such language involves some spillage of organized 'warfare' onto people and groups. I disagree with this type of warfare completely."
I guess you're referring to Ephesians 6:12 - "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places."
Hmmm.... but the Bible does sometimes use this language about interpersonal conflict - Jude 1:3-4 - "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ."
When Jude says he was stirred to write because "certain persons have crept in unnoticed", that sounds quite similar to the "alarmist" language of the blurb... I agree with you that false doctrine and false teachers is nothing new... though it apparently it will get worse near the end of the age (Matt. 24:4-14, 24:24, 2 Thess 2:7-12, 1 Tim. 4:1-3, 2 Tim. 3, 4:3-4, 2 Peter 2:1, etc).
I also agree with you that "the Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will." (2 Tim. 2:24-26) The pastor has to be able to "correct" other people with "gentleness" when they teach falsehood.
Paul wrote to Titus: "For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, namely, if any man is above reproach,...
...holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain."
There is obviously a (nontrivial) balance between "contending earnestly" and "refuting those who contradict" and still using "gentleness" when correcting people who are "held captive by the devil". I find it amazing that Paul uses such strong language - "...must be silenced"!?!?
Might this apply to someone like Brian McClaren or Robert Schuller today? If you were a pastor and they rose up and started teaching in your church...? What if they left your church and started writing books? Would it be appropriate to write books in response, as MacArthur seems to be doing? (and as he as done before in the past, e.g. the lordship-salvation controversy with Zane Hodges, etc)
More on doctrinal "fighting language" in the Bible - Paul recounted in Gal. 2:3-5 -
"But not even Titus, who was with me, though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. But it was because of the false brethren secretly brought in, who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage. But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you."
and a few verses later Paul recounts, "But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned."
Somehow this is consistent? "Opposing someone to their face", "not yielding in subjection for even an hour", simply to "contend earnestly for" a doctrinal point? As you mentioned with respect to absolute truth, yes, it depends on the "doctrinal point."
In agreement (I think) with you, we need to be ready to "correct", "refute", "silence", "not yield in submission even for an hour", "oppose to his face", "contend earnestly" (literally "epagonizomai", to wrestle/to agonize), and "be on the alert" on behalf of the flock / the body of Christ. Yet we need to do this with "gentleness" and "respect" (1 Pet. 3:15)...
There have been many "battles" in the history of the church. (the word "battles" seems more appropriate than "arguments" or "discussions" for certain major conflicts... perhaps the Bible did not refer to such "doctrinal battles" simply because they had not yet been fought? Or perhaps I'm overlooking some. By the way, Nehemiah's style of "argumentation" is particularly... eh... 'non-western'... "So I contended with them and cursed them and struck some of them and pulled out their hair.." ;)
Here's a quote from Gresham Machen, who participated in what would be almost impossible not to call a "battle" at Princeton around the turn of the century -
"Tertullian fought a mighty battle against Marcion; Athanasius fought against the Arians; Augustine fought against Pelagius; and as for Luther, he fought a brave battle against kings and princes and popes for the liberty of the people of God. Luther was a great fighter; and we love him for it. So was Calvin; so were John Knox and all the rest. It is impossible to be a true soldier of Jesus Christ and not fight."
Should these "battles" not have been fought? Since it takes two to have an argument, I think the pertinant question is: should the men of God who knew the truth have decided not to stand up and vocally "oppose" those who were teaching falsehood in the church?
To add to Machen's quote, I might consider Paul's 'fight' against the Judaizers and potentially the 'fight' of MacArthur, Piper, Carson, Mohler, and others against the modern ecumenical/liberals like McClaren and Grenz and others...
Let us "be on the alert" doctrinally, ready to "refute" if needed, but meanwhile ready and practicing love to "all men, but especially those of the household of faith."
Acts 20:28-32
"Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.
Therefore be on the alert, remembering that night and day for a period of three years I did not cease to admonish each one with tears.
And now I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified."
I don't quite view it that way. It's not only that Christianity isn't what I'm looking for. It's also that I see things about it, or things that many self-proclaimed Christians seem to advocate, that I heavily disagree with. Beyond that, my agnosticism isn't me saying "Oh, well, I kinda wanna believe in God but I kinda don't." God isn't something you can either prove or disprove scientifically. I don't believe in God because I don't see much reason to, be it empirical evidence or emotional necessity. But I don't believe God CAN'T exist because it's impossible to DISprove almost anything, let alone something that is by its definition not clearly visible.
~Sol
there's a big difference between war and "refuting", "correcting", "silencing," "opposing," and "not yielding," etc. Argument is not war. Yes, there is conflict, but when we escalate the language from conflict and argument to warfare and battle, especially against people.
And on Luther and Calvin -- I think, in some ways, they went way too far. Executing people for disagreeing with them? Calvin ran a very hardline religi-ocracy in Geneva, and I would say they took the warfare thing too far. What about the Popes and the crusades?
It is easy to use rhetorical devices, such as battle language, to stir people up -- but I would rather they be stirred by the Holy Spirit prompting them to respond to Truth.
Our job is to speak Truth. God will change people's hearts.
correction:
Yes, there is conflict, but when we escalate the language from conflict and argument to warfare and battle, especially against people, a sort of bloodlust tends to take over, and we need clarity to "oppose to their face" while leaving judgment and vengeance to God.
> Argument is not war.
True. Also, I agree that Calvin went a little overboard from what I recall... I never really studied the details though. The crusades are trickier... the first crusades were more defensive national battles than offensive religious battles. The later ones were less justified.
> we need clarity to "oppose to their face" while leaving judgment and vengeance to God.
Yes.
Comments are closed.