Truth Entails both Affirmations and Denials: An Exercise in Doing Theology with Brian McLaren

My friend, over on The Billy Goat, posted excerpts of various interviews with Brian McLaren. One excerpt is from an interview found here, prompted by John Wilson's review of Everything Must Change in Christianity Today.

Here is the portion of the interview The Billy Goat posted and with which I interact in the comments portion of The Billy Goat's blog. It is an interview that concerns McLaren's book, Everything Must Change.

Q: Some might say that heretofore environmentalism, conservationism and other such movements have been very much focused on staving off the catastrophe that is our inevitable future. In this perhaps they find some small common ground with the predominant trends in eschatology. In what ways do you believe the way of Jesus speaks into these convergent themes of inevitable doom, transforming them into meaningful efforts of hope and sustainability?

A: Many Christians seem to believe that God’s relationship with the universe is deterministic, that God has already filmed the future in his mind, and what we’re seeing unfold in history is the showing of a movie that’s already “in the can” so to speak. I don’t believe that. I believe God’s relationship with creation—including us—is interactive. God gives us warnings, which are an invitation to change our ways. God gives us promises, which are an invitation to persevere when the going gets tough. A great example is the prophet Jonah. He was sent to Nineveh to prophesy doom, in hopes that the people would repent so the prophecy wouldn’t come true!

_______________________

Here, then, is my interaction with the above portion of the interview.

McLaren states, "Many Christians seem to believe that God’s relationship with the universe is deterministic, that God has already filmed the future in his mind, and what we’re seeing unfold in history is the showing of a movie that’s already 'in the can' so to speak. I don’t believe that. I believe God’s relationship with creation—including us—is interactive. God gives us warnings, which are an invitation to change our ways. God gives us promises, which are an invitation to persevere when the going gets tough. A great example is the prophet Jonah. He was sent to Nineveh to prophesy doom, in hopes that the people would repent so the prophecy wouldn’t come true."

The fundamental problem with McLaren's response to the question is that he caricatures the position with which he disagrees.

I think that it is reasonable to understand that McLaren thinks that he is representing Calvin's/Luther's/Augustine's belief by saying, Many Christians seem to believe that God’s relationship with the universe is deterministic, that God has already filmed the future in his mind, and what we’re seeing unfold in history is the showing of a movie that’s already "in the can" so to speak.

This is a gross misrepresentation of Calvinism/Augustinianism. It is a gross caricature of what you and I believe.

On the other hand, I cannot formally disagree with what McLaren says when he states, I believe God’s relationship with creation—including us—is interactive. God gives us warnings, which are an invitation to change our ways. God gives us promises, which are an invitation to persevere when the going gets tough. A great example is the prophet Jonah. He was sent to Nineveh to prophesy doom, in hopes that the people would repent so the prophecy wouldn’t come true.

McLaren does not state the matter quite as well as I would prefer, for instead of saying, I believe God’s relationship with creation—including us—is interactive., I would say, I believe God’s relationship with creation—including us—is covenantal. Interactive is not the biblical category; covenantal is the biblical category.

What is my concern and what is my point? It is not McLaren's formal affirmation of belief that is problematic in itself. Rather, it is his repudiation of a belief that he thoroughly caricatures that is the problem. After caricaturing Calvinism he rejects Calvinism. What is the problem here? He does not offer the slightest hint that he has any accurate or truthful understanding of Calvinism. Hence, he provides not the slightest hint that he has any accurate or truthful understanding of Scripture's teaching concerning God's relationship with his created order despite the fact that what he positively affirms formally agrees with what Scripture teaches. This is, I believe, the precise flaw with Open Theism and with Open Theists, also. They do exactly the same thing. They caricature Calvinism/Augustinianism and then repudiate the caricature. This is McLaren's error.

Here, then, is a classic illustration of the cruciality of what we both affirm and deny. If we deny a wholly fabricated caricature of beliefs concerning Scripture and then contrast our affirmations over against that fabricated caricature of beliefs, we prove to be traitors to the cause of truth. For if we truly love truth, we are obligated to represent truthfully those beliefs and systems of beliefs that we repudiate. Otherwise, when we contrast our beliefs with caricatured beliefs, we introduce profound confusion and falsehood and we do serious injury to truth and to the cause of truth.

In other words, if we expect to be taken seriously as purveyors of truth and not as purveyors of lies and of falsehoods, we are obligated to speak the truth not only concerning what we affirm but also concerning what we deny. Failure to do this renders many false teachers.