The Truth War: A Response from ACT 3
April 16, 2007
Rev. P. Andrew Sandlin
Foreword
In his recent book, The Truth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception, Dr. John MacArthur presents a critique of the imminent perils that he believes are now moving the church toward a postmodern and unbiblical framework for understanding the gospel. The Truth War is a strong warning about these grave dangers. In it the ministry of Dr. John Armstrong is strongly and clearly portrayed as being on the wrong side of this war. The Board of ACT 3 believes that Dr. MacArthur's comments deserve a response from us thus we asked a member of our Advisory Board, Rev. P. Andrew Sandlin, to provide a review/response on our behalf. We welcome this opportunity to join a conversation about these issues that now face the Church. We welcome your sincere input to this dialogue. As a board we also believe that Rev. Sandlin's article engages this discussion in a way that helps all who are truly interested in thinking through the true nature of Christian certainty. It will also help our numerous friends to better understand Dr. Armstrong's position in this regard.
Dr. Wilbur Ellsworth
Chairman, ACT 3 Board
Dr. John MacArthur Is Certainly Wrong
Rev. P. Andrew Sandlin
Dr. John MacArthur, popular evangelical pastor and speaker on the radio program Grace to You, has just released the book, TheTruth War: Fighting for Certainty in an Age of Deception (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007). The book's objective is to expose the alleged Satanic conspiracy in the form of postmodernism that has infested evangelicalism. The book's cover displays a sinister serpent—by implication, Satan—poised to infiltrate the church with its lethal postmodern poison. Truth itself is under assault, and all true evangelicals must rally to defend it. MacArthur spares little rhetoric in exposing as participants in this plot certain prominent evangelical teachers from Rick Warren to Brian McLaren to John Franke to the late Stanley Grenz to John H. Armstrong of ACT 3 Ministries.
John H. Armstrong? Yes, John Armstrong. Relying on a single article in Armstrong's newsletter Viewpoint, and a single post from his blog, MacArthur writes (pp. 20-23) that Armstrong is suffering from the "illusion" of postmodernism, having replaced his former certainty "with a wholly subjective, irrational, postmodern antihermeneutic." MacArthur implies that Armstrong is a false prophet and a false teacher, one of the Satanically deceived—and deceivers—in today's evangelical church (p. 23). On what basis? Because Armstrong dared to say publicly that he had changed his mind, not about his doctrinal beliefs (which stand unshaken), but about his epistemic beliefs—that is, how he arrives at and holds his beliefs. MacArthur considers this epistemic shift unforgivable and worthy of scorn and obloquy.
MacArthur's Very Broad Brush
Unfortunately, MacArthur's jeremiad paints with a broad brush when a delicate finishing tool was required, and in so doing his critique turns out to be false. His citations from Armstrong's "How I Changed My Mind" series are technically accurate, but he draws unwarranted and spurious conclusions from those statements. MacArthur states that Armstrong denies we can "know anything with any degree of certainty" (p. 22), yet if one actually reads Armstrong's statements, he will note that it is only the foundationalist form of certainty that Armstrong was contesting. In philosophy, foundationalism is an epistemic theory that holds belief systems are built up from a foundation, a single indubitable, unquestionable belief. It is the epistemology characteristic of the Enlightenment and found in its religious stepchildren, liberalism and fundamentalism, and it is this form of certitude demanded by this epistemology that Armstrong questioned, none others.
Two Certainties
Like many of us other evangelicals, Armstrong once held to this Enlightenment foundationalism that situates certainty not so much in a faith-enriched friendship with the Triune God in harmony with His revelation in the Bible and in creation and the church but rather in precise, dogmatic, humanly constructed theological statements in which much of evangelicalism and fundamentalism glory. Armstrong has never denied the need for precise theological statements; he denied that our certainty rests in these words of men rather than in our intimate relation with God in the Person of Jesus. We are not skeptics; we are Christians who want the right kind of certainty. We are not opposed to certainty; we are opposed to foundationalist certainty, which we deem to be un-Biblical. We did not change our minds because we wanted to become postmodernists; we changed our minds because we wanted to become more faithful Christians.
The charge, therefore, that Armstrong denies we can "know anything with any degree of certainty" is not merely false (as anyone reading his works knows), but preposterous. Like most of us other orthodox Christians, Armstrong recites the Apostles Creed every Lord's Day without mental reservation. He therefore can hardly be opposed to all certainty, unless MacArthur wishes to charge him with the additional sin of hypocrisy.
Sloganeering and Grandstanding
Admittedly, there are sophisticated epistemic issues here related to how one knows what he knows, the spirit in which he knows, and the character of that knowledge. This epistemic sophistication is not especially well suited to fundamentalist sloganeering, the sort of discourse we find in TheTruth War, but Armstrong's series was a valid discussion to undertake amid the ferment occasioned by the collision between modernity and postmodernity. The fact that Armstrong joins that discussion with a chastened (Biblical) epistemology is no occasion for MacArthur to light the faggots and imply Armstrong is an agent of Satan and false teacher.
In his introduction, MacArthur cites numerous Scriptures mentioning the topic of truth. He apparently believes that mere Scripture citation makes his case against Armstrong and others. This is a form of spurious grandstanding—substituting assertions for arguments to people who rightly take the Bible's authority seriously. These readers deserve actual arguments, not assertions. Armstrong, as a matter of fact, holds the truth [!] of those verses no less than MacArthur. He simply does not believe these verses present a definition of truth in line with the Enlightenment and its impact on recent fundamentalism and evangelicalism. Armstrong wants a truly Biblical idea of truth rooted in one's relationship with the Triune God and in communion with the church. Armstrong does not dissent from the Scripture; he dissents from approaches to the Scripture like MacArthur's that wed the truth too closely to Enlightenment epistemology. Armstrong opposes the cultural captivity of theology and Christian life to the Enlightenment modernism. He is trying to be more faithful to the certainty we actually see in the Bible, not less faithful.
There is a good reason, therefore, that MacArthur's book does not actually refute Armstrong but merely cites Jude 3 and makes some generic comments about truth and assumes the readers will be persuaded—that good reason is that Armstrong's views are not un-Biblical; at least, MacArthur has not exhibited that they are un-Biblical, an exhibition one might have expected given the incendiary, withering criticisms MacArthur leveled. But assertions are no substitutes for arguments.
Nefarious Name Change?
MacArthur implies some nefarious intent in Armstrong's changing the ministry name from "Reformation and Revival" to "Act 3." But the titular acronym stands for "Equipping Leaders for Unity in Christ's Mission." Armstrong is committed unreservedly to the certainties of Christian orthodoxy, but he is not committed to a foundationalist epistemology in which those beliefs are often couched. MacArthur should not make the mistake of assuming that Armstrong is theologically deviant merely on the grounds that he does not share MacArthur's epistemology. In fact, MacArthur might consider whether his own epistemology is ill suited to defend the Christian doctrine he articulates. Ironically, while Armstrong continues to be an unflagging supporter of the Protestant Reformation and of Biblical revival, in changing the ministry name to Act 3 he is highlighting even greater certainty than was implied in the name "Reformation and Revival": the certainty of the entire Christian tradition.
Fast and Loose on the Scholarship
While MacArthur's introduction carries a breezy, sketchy genealogy of modernism and postmodernism, it is not evident from the book that he is acquainted with the primary literature that would have given him sufficient background to write knowledgeably about his topic. If you intend to level public accusations that fellow orthodox evangelicals have become the tool of Satan, your readers deserve to know that you are extensively acquainted with your topic and that you have read those evangelicals' works carefully. This due diligence is not evident from MacArthur's book. In fact, he makes bold, controversial statements about both modernity and postmodernity without bothering to document them. For instance, he summarily trumpets that the presuppositions of the scientific method "gave birth to Darwinism," (p. 9) yet that simple, bold assertion is freighted with controversial historical assumptions that no knowledgeable student of the 18th and 19th centuries would accept at face value. Another instance: MacArthur writes that "postmodernism's one goal and singular activity is the systematic deconstruction of every other truth claim" (p. 11). This is a breathtaking, daring assertion that simple acquaintance with the primary tests of postmodernism will not support. Anyone aware of the works of, to mention but a single example, Jean-François Lyotard, knows that postmodernism is about the relation between the modern and the postmodern, not "systematic deconstruction of every other truth claim." In fact, Lyotard himself spent considerable time arguing for the validity of justice as opposed to injustice, and argued for the valid distinction between the two. Right or wrong, "postmodernism's one goal and singular activity is" not "the systematic deconstruction of every other truth claim." The fact that MacArthur has written so incautiously on these matters may lead one to believe he also plays fast and loose with the truth [!] when he criticizes his fellow evangelicals.
A Serious Casualty
Moreover, a serious casualty of MacArthur's jeremiad is the defense of the Faith against its actual enemies. We are plagued by people like Bishop Shelby Spong, who deny and ridicule central truths of the Faith like the resurrection of Jesus, as well as that spate of authors who see the Jesus depicted in orthodox Christianity as a conspiracy cooked up by the ancient catholic church. By arguing that Armstrong is Satan's tool because he does not agree with MacArthur's preferred Enlightenment epistemology, MacArthur distracts attention from the actual enemies of the Faith against whom the church should be fortifying itself.
Emergent?
MacArthur implicitly links Armstrong with the Emergent Movement (pp. x, xi, 20-21), which is the book's big bogeyman (especially in the form of Brian McLaren). Yet if MacArthur had taken the time to investigate, he would have known that in 2005 Reformation and Revival published two substantive journals (Vol. 14, Nos. 3 and 4) largely devoted to assessing the Emergent Movement. That assessment was balanced and fair, neither fulsome in its commendation nor unsparing in its criticism. It contained articles both critical and commendatory, and it is likely the most extensive, balanced treatment of the Emergent Movement yet to appear in print. MacArthur could readily have discovered this fact had he bothered to investigate.
Wanted: Enemies
Why did MacArthur unleash such a false, public attack on Armstrong? We cannot—and should not—read his motives, but MacArthur himself does furnish a clue. He is troubled by Christians who refuse to fight (pp. xi-xxiv). But, he argues, battles must go on and on indefinitely because truth is constantly under attack. No doubt, there will always be enemies of Christ's truth, but a subtle problem attaches to MacArthur's approach. From the valid observation that there will always be enemies of the church, some find it easy to shift to the invalid assumption that if we cannot find those enemies, we must invent them. This was the course of 20th century fundamentalism from which MacArthur himself has suffered—he has been labeled an enemy of truth because of his "neo-evangelical" theology and associations. The fundamentalists could not find enemies in liberals, so they invented one in MacArthur. Now, ironically, MacArthur invents one in Armstrong.
This strident, but spurious, attack on orthodox evangelical Christians masquerading as commitment to truth is most pernicious in that it appeals to Christians—often young ministers—who crave foundationalist certitude, which they mistakenly equate with Biblical fidelity. Sidestepping the genuine certitude springing from a protracted, loving, intimate friendship with Jesus Christ nourished on the "uncertainties" of faith (Rom. 4:18; Heb. 11:36-40), and taking instead the mad-dash shortcut to foundationalist certainty that allows one to engage in shameful public lynching and the perverse delight it fosters, they miss the certainty forged on the anvil of God's sustained purposes for those who will trust more in Him alone than in historically constructed theological statements to which men impute divine truth.
Accountability
MacArthur identifies Armstrong as the agent of Satan in poisoning the church (pp. 20-23), despite the fact that he affirms every tenet of ancient catholic orthodoxy and despite the fact that MacArthur could not offer a single Biblical text to refute Armstrong's views.
But nonetheless dangerous. Who will hold MacArthur accountable for his false witness against his brother? His advisory board? His donor base? False witness is no less dangerous than a denial of the truth, for that witness itself is an assault on the truth.
MacArthur claims to be vitally interested in certainty, but there is one thing of which we can be certain in his treatment of Armstrong.
MacArthur is certainly wrong.
Rev. P. Andrew Sandlin (www.andrewsandlin.net) is a member of the advisory board of ACT 3 and serves as a
theological consultant for ACT 3. He is president of the Center for Christian Culture (www.christianculture.com) and a preacher at the Church of the King in Santa Cruz, California (www.cotk.org). He can be reached at sandlin@saber.net.
I am so very sorry that Dr. Armstrong has to endure this attack by Dr. John MacArthur. Surely Thomas Nelson publishers are complicit here as well? The Scripture that keeps running through my head is John 13:35. I would like to know why Dr. MacArthur (and the publisher)thinks his very public book is in line with seeking the highest good (agape love) of Dr. Armstrong and the others, not to mention answering how it is supposed to set a godly example of how to handle concerns with our brothers and sisters in the Lord? Where is the gentleness? Where is the humility? I'm just shaking my head in sadness at this event.
I will certainly ask the Lord Jesus to comfort and strengthen Dr. Armstrong.
I know that he desires to know and hold onto God's unchanging, eternal truth and to inspire the Church to do likewise. That is without question.
In spite of Dr. MacArthur's actions, may the Lord use this situation to ultimately bring glory to Himself and edification to His people.
Dr. Armstrong, our earnest prayers are with you. The Lord is with you and is Sovereign over all things. Take heart!
Having read MacArthur's book, I can say that Andrew's response is thorough and exceedingly accurate - very well done! In reading MacArthur's book, I was particularly struck by his facile understanding and treatment of postmodernism. His summation of postmodernism reads like a regurgitation of popularized rhetoric common to those who have not taken the time to actually understand the complexities of postmodern ideas. Lastly, it is troubling to see an evangelical of MacArthur’s stature to descend into such an unmerited and sensationalized attack on another brother in Christ. As Andrew so aptly points out, MacArthur’s assault on John only serves to distract “attention from the actual enemies of the Faith against whom the church should be fortifying itself.” Not only is MacArthur wrong in his evaluation of John’s theology, he is wrong in his actions. He should repent and apologize!
John,
I too am deeply grieved that Dr. MacArthur felt it necessary to write such a misguided book on his so- called "Truth War". I find it sad that he has stooped to such irresponsible tactics as caricaturizing and misrepresenting your beliefs and convictions which are thoroughly grounded in historic Christian orthodoxy (Truth). I have read many of Dr. MacArthur's works in the past, and listened to his radio broadcasts for several years, and though I benefitted from some of it, I grew increasingly weary of his constant need to "blast' everyone who disagreed with him on Christian perspectives that were other than historic orthodox doctrines. His attack on the Roman Catholic Church a few years ago was just too much. It was full of historical and theological inaccuracies, and simply set up "straw men" about what the RCC supposedly taught, and then proceeded to "knock them down". Well, now it seems he has done the same thing again with your ministy, as well as others like Brian MaClaren and Rick Warren. John, as always my prayers are with you and the ACT 3 Ministry, and I will pray for Dr. MacArthur, and especially that he will see the irresponsible manner in which he treats other servants of God and the damage it does to the whole Body of Christ. God bless you my brother and friend!
John,
You have interviewed Brian McLaren and simply declared that you are in agreement with him on some and disagree with him on others. It appears that John Armstrong certainly does not believe in the perpescuity of scripture. McLaren does not yet know whether to allow homosexuality, yet you will meet with him as a brother? Giving credence to men like McLaren is the same as giving credence to Balaam who even talked to God, who even obeyed God. Yet he disobeyed God by promoting immorality - Balaam. So I don't think MacArthur was unfair regarding John Armstrong's position at all. The Bible is clear that we are to refuse fellowship with professing believers who distort the truth. 2John 10,11 How can we really be for something unless we are also really against some things and demonstrate it?
Thanks for this excellent critique of MacArthur. Based on past attacks he has made on fellow Christians, I was very leary about this latest book from the moment I heard of it. I attend a church that is affiliated with the Emerging movement, and we too, affirm the Orthodox Christian faith in its totality and seek to be more faithful to the gospel and the historic Christian faith. We do not live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of Brian MacLaren or any other popular leader. In fact, our Sunday morning service contains more scripture reading and more affirmation of creedal truth than any church I have ever attended. I read over part of MacArthur's book and was distrubed by the very things you mentioned in your critique, especially the broad brush that all those associated with the Emerging movement are painted with. It is ironic that someone who writes a book about the need to defend truth cannot be more accurate and informed about the topic on which he is writing.
