Thursday, July 28, 2011

MacArthur and YRRs

Everybody knew it was coming, and it finally came. John MacArthur decided to pen a series of critiques on the Young, Restless, and Reformed movement. If you aren’t familiar with the YRR label, it comes from Colon Hansen’s book by that title and applies to the “New Calvinists,” whose growth and influence has been recently touted by even the secular media. When I heard of the critique, my initial response was, “I’m shocked! A critique by Johnny Mac? Who would have thought he had it in him?” Then I repented of my sins and read the critique.

I’ve read this first of a three part critique over and over trying to decipher exactly what MacArthur is trying to say, and I have come to several conclusions that I need to get out in words before they burn a whole in my brain.

1) First, I can sort of see where he is coming from. There are some in the YRR camp that act like their ability to chug of few cold ones and appreciate the fine art of pipe smoking ranks them as first class missional missionary guys. Personally, I know a few who can sit down, have a beer with a friend, and effectively share the gospel. But it’s not like beer was the key to unlocking the Spirit’s effectual call to salvation. Although inebriation might both loosen the tongue and open the heart. Just kidding. There is an underlying pragmatism (MacArthur’s favorite word. Seriously, just listen to any one of his sermons on what is wrong with the church today and count how many times he says “pragmatism.” It’s double digits, easy. A close second is “relativism.” I’m personally found of “ridiculous.” Say it several times every sermon. No idea why.”) with such thinking, which is MacArthur’s main point. “If I just unlock the cool code of hipsteranity, I can reach the world. Old people want me to be so uncool and that totally downgrades my missional effectiveness.” I see that element in the YRR movement, and I agree we need to repent and get past it.

2) Secondly, MacArthur is liked because he is a man of conviction in age without a spine. He speaks authoritatively when most, like, don’t, you know. He draws lines when most people are trying to blur them. And much of that is good and appreciated, but there is a negative side. Authority is hard to tone down. It’s really hard to say, “That line you cannot cross. This line over here, well, it’s not that big of a deal. It’s just what I think.” I have heard MacArthur speak on the rightness of classical music over against rock like he was talking about the doctrine of the Trinity. I’m not saying he puts them on the same level. He just sounds like he does. Although it is hard to distinguish one line from another, it is absolutely necessary to do so. Even the apostle Paul did it (e.g. 1 Cor 7:25). If you don’t, then you put yourself and your listeners out on an island of self-proclaimed, super-spirituality. You make your personal grasp of truth the standard for all. When MacArthur says that we should all dress for corporate worship like we would for a wedding, he’s gone past Scripture. He’s standing on his own. But you wouldn’t know it by the way he speaks.

3) Thirdly, there is the whole issue of tone. When MacArthur says, “I sometimes think no group is more fashion-conscious than the current crop of hipster church planters—except perhaps teenage girls,” it’s hilarious. Oh, come on. That’s funny. But that is not exactly the way to get an audience. Can’t somebody tell MacArthur to study up on Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People? Pragmatism! Oh, right. MacArthur has this mantra that you speak the truth and trust God with the consequences. Don’t worry about how the truth is received. Let God take care of that. But Scripture also says, “The Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth”(2 Timothy 2:24-25). If gentleness is for opponents, what about your co-laborers in the gospel? Isn’t there room for faith in God’s sovereignty that speaks truth in a gentle, humble, loving spirit that exudes the truth one is trying to communicate? A faith that doesn’t feel the necessity to bash someone over the head with a hammer, but believes counter-intuitively that the Spirit will use a gentle rebuke with far greater effectiveness like he promises? Sometimes I think the “speak truth and trust God with the consequences” mentality is an excuse to avoid doing the hard work of really getting to know the person we are correcting and tailoring our message to make it both convicting and appealing. That can’t always be done, but many times it can. And if we truly love those we are correcting, we’ll do it.

4) Fourthly, pragmatism, at lease as MacArther defines it, is the big issue. Often I think MacArthur and guys like Driscoll are ships passing in the night. What MacArthur labels as “cultural capitulation” and “pragmatism,” Driscoll labels “contextualizing the gospel.” The problem is not the extent YRRs go to “contextualize.” No, as far as I can tell, and correct me if I am wrong, MacArthur says “contextualization” by definition is a cultural sell-out. Which to me is like saying translating the Bible to English is a cultural capitulation (which unfortunately is not an unheard of claim in the annals of Christian history). Here again MacArthur claims to cast his lot with the sovereignty of God by shunning attempts to be “relevant.” So here is the question I have, “Do we cast doubt on the power of the Spirit and sufficiency of the gospel by working to make ourselves clearly understood? And by making ourselves understood through identifying with our fellow fallen images of God in every non-sinful way that we are capable of? Did Hudson Taylor forsake his faith in the Spirit by dressing and living like a Chinamen for the sake of the gospel?”

I think my answer to those questions are clear enough. MacArthur tells us to dress like we are going to meet the President, preach the gospel, and let God do the rest. Others are saying, “Hey, you know there are a lot of ‘younger brother’ types that look at these nice clothes and think we are a bunch of self-righteous prudes. They don’t like to wear this stuff and feel uncomfortable if I wear it around them. Isn’t it silly that something so small should stand in the way of them coming to corporate worship. I mean the only biblical prohibitions on dress I can find are about the problems of modesty and over-dressing! So I think I can preach in jeans.” So long as this divide exists, I’m afraid never the twain shall meet. At least, not this side of redemption.