Gospel Prism

Brian McLaren had this to say about absolute truth in a USA Today interview:

Q: On the theology behind the emerging church, you reject the idea that there’s an absolute truth. So what boundaries are there on theology that churches are teaching? Can any church just call itself an emerging church?

A: Obviously that’s a challenge. The flip side of that question is look at the Catholic Church: For all of its orthodoxy, it could have bishops covering up for molesting priests. And evangelicals, for all their claims of orthodoxy, can be barbaric to gay people and can blindly support a rush to war in Iraq and can be, as we speak, fomenting for war with Iran. … Obviously, I have a lot of critics and they often say, ‘You’re wanting to water down the Gospel to accommodate to post-modernity.’ I say, ‘No, I really don’t want to do that. But what I do want to do is acknowledge first the ways we’ve already watered down the Gospel to accommodate modernity.’ … I think the naivete of some of those critics is that they’re starting with a pure pristine understanding of the Gospel. It seems to me we’re all in danger of screwing up.

First, when one jettisons absolute truth (which ultimately is a logical fallacy because without any absolutes, there really can be no such thing as good or evil), one ultimately jettisons any sense of morality. For example, what makes polygamy wrong? or bestiality? or cannibalism? or infanticide? or the destruction of ‘worthless humans’ such as those who are handicapped or mentally retarded? Is it based on societal norms? What if society changes to accept such things? Is a society that sacrifices children to idols correct because that society deems such actions as correct behavior? How can one reject this idea without any absolute truth?

Second, what does he mean by a ‘pure pristine understanding of the Gospel’? Does holding a view on the Gospel that is opposed to his view, lead one to believe that my view is a ‘pure pristine view’? I hope it truly is pristine, only because that is what Scripture teaches. But if there is no absolute truth, then why turn to Scripture at all to defend a Gospel? Why not turn to the Koran or B. F. Skinner’s works or Tolstoy or the Bhagavad Gita?

Third, what are we in danger of screwing up? It seems that he paints certain political ideals such as ‘blindly rushing to war in Iraq’ to ‘fomenting war in Iraq’ to being ‘barbaric to gay people’ with a broad brush over those who hold to this ‘pristine understanding of the Gospel.’ Biblical evangelicals are not so monolithic politically as he paints them to be. He seems to makes all sorts of absolute statements about things that are not so absolute and then he makes unabsolute statements about things that should be absolute. The contradictions sadly abound.