Deconstructing: “The New Christians”

I just had to take a break from tree hugging to post this latest dispatch from field correspondent Audie Thacker, who challeneges Tony Jones’ notion that beauty is a delivery mechanism for truth. Having “sat under” some very ugly school teachers, I might be inclined to challenge the notion myself, but the trees will not wait…
*****************************************

“Beauty, you may say, is a delivery mechanism for truth.”

Tony Jones, The New Christians, p. 160

Favor is deceitful, and beauty is vain:

Proverbs 31: 30

I approach this with some amount of caution, because I think that I can partially understand what Jones is trying to say here, and I’m not really against parts of it. But I must approach it, because I cannot agree with some of what he is saying here, and it is important.

In an earlier section of the book, Jones makes two claims. They can be found on p. 103. Here is the first.

Good theology begets beautiful Christianity.

And here is the second, which follows from it.

Bad theology begets ugly Christianity.

There is a large degree to which I can almost agree with this. It is bad theology, for example, that has plagued us with the Word of Faith and Prosperity Gospel.

But I’m also a bit leery of this, too. For example, can one really say there was no beauty in the Prosperity Gospel? Didn’t the TV sets looks nice, and the people dapper in their suits and dresses? Didn’t they sound authoritative when they spoke, didn’t they sing well, didn’t they seem to have it all together? Weren’t their lives the successes that we all wished we had?

If one wants to ask “But is that really beauty”, then we are getting into deeper questions. Perhaps the most important ones for this discussion are “What is beauty?” and “What is beauty’s relation to truth?”

Making decisions on what is beauty and what things are beautiful can be tricky, and are in most cases subjective.

I recently spent time in another country, and while walking with a friend in a park, we heard many different kinds of musical performances. Passing by a woman singing in what I supposed to be the country’s operatic style, I made a remark to my friend which was something like this, “I think that kind of singing is an acquired taste”. She, also not being a native of that country, agreed.

To my ears, and I would guess also to the ears of my friend, such singing was not very pleasant. Assuming, though, that the singer was a good and skilled representative of that country’s style (in reality she could simply have been a bad singer in any style, though there were several others in the park singing in much the same way), would the people of that country have considered her as unpleasant as we did? Very likely, they would not.

Musical styles can vary greatly from country to country, and even within a country. I think it is India that has a music that is very intricate in regards to rhythm, much more so then the common 3 and 4 beats that dominate in western music. Some places have more notes then western music does, and western seems to be one of the more harmonically complex systems I’ve come on, though my knowledge is limited.

All that to say, music that is considered beautiful in one place may be considered unpleasant in another. In that sense, there is a certain relative aspect to beauty.

Nor is beauty always a nice thing. I remember in college a friend who struggled with things like bulimia. The sad thing was, she was already a perfectly attractive young lady, but for whatever reasons she still struggled with those things. One could probably find other examples, such the old Chinese practice of foot-binding, where the pursuit of feminine beauty would take on an aspect that could be considered tortuous.

This isn’t an easy thing to write about, because I do consider beauty to be a good thing. I can remember the first time I heard the first few minutes of the first movement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, and how moved I was by it. I consider the second movement to Rachmaninoff’s second piano concerto to be on the most beautiful pieces of music I have ever heard. The book “Cry, The Beloved Country” is one of the most beautifully written books I’ve read. As I’m writing this, I have on my computer’s desktop a photo of a young lady whom I consider very beautiful indeed, both in her physical aspect and in the type of person she is.

But beauty isn’t everything, nor is it the most important thing. If I knew a woman who was physically stunning, but whose character was wicked, while I may acknowledge her physical beauty, I would not call her a beautiful person, and in the end would consider that her physical beauty is only a facade to her inner ugliness. And I think that is what the Proverb at the beginning of this entry is getting at, that the physical aspects of a woman can deceive and are merely surface things, but her character if she is one who fears God is what is truly valuable. In her middle years and old age, she will not be as physically attractive as she was in her youth, but her beauty of character will still be there.

Or let me apply this to music. I will admit that musically Lennon’s “Imagine” is quite nice, but in regards to its message, I can only consider it an evil song, and any value in its musical beauty is of at best academic concern. The fact that it sounds nice does not make the message any less ugly.

Now, let’s consider what Jones said, that “good theology begets beautiful Christianity”. Perhaps someone else who reads the book may find what he means by ‘beautiful Christianity’, but I admit that I do not, at least not in an explicitly stated sense. In reading the book as whole, though, it may well be that what he considers beautiful would be something that I cannot considered beautiful.

And that is the point. At the beginning of this entry, I quote Jones having written “Beauty, you may say, is a delivery mechanism for truth”. But is it? Is the truth always beautiful, and the beauty always truthful?

This entry has gone long enough, and I think I’ve partially answered some of that here. I’ll try to pick it up again in a later entry, hopefully soon.

~ Audie

Robert Burris offers an analysis of the passage surrounding Jephthah and his daughter that is sure to inspire conversation among the faithful.
***********************************************************

I must admit to being overwhelmed as I read The New Kierkegaardians Christians. The error and stupidity in the book are staggering. I do well to choose a single battle and fight it, hoping to provoke others to be more discerning as they read the book. The battle I choose is to fight is against Jones’ shameful treatment of Judges 11. Tony abuses the story of Jephthah and his daughter (pg. 145-14 in order to paint orthodox readings of it as wrong. Never mind that he uses a phony “orthodox” interpretation to argue against. Tony Jones avoids salient points in the story of Jephthah to avoid the Gospel message there.

I loathe The New Christians, because it presents the basest view of Christianity that I can imagine. To the Emergent sycophants, the book is glorious and Jephthah is base. Theirs is a view that turns proper exegesis on its head. In his rush to deconstruct (tear down) the story of Jephthah, Tony Jones, makes a parody of the Gospel. Like his friend, Brian McLaren, Tony reduces a story of redemption to one of “child abuse”. McLaren sides with the likes of Jeffery John, Steve Chalke, Alan Jones, J. Denny Weaver, Joel Green and Mark Baker in trying to reinvent Christ’s atoning death and justifying resurrection. Tony Jones sides with all of them when he follows their method.

Jephthah, Whom God sets free

Is this about good theology or a matter of taking sides? I submit to you that it is about both. The revisioners embrace bad theology and end up on the side of heresy. Tony Jones is a theological workman who ought to be ashamed. He deals with scripture deceitfully and purposefully avoids the Gospel message of the Old Testament. Let’s consider Jephthah and his daughter.

The story of Jephthah comes out of the Old Testament book of Judges. The Holy Spirit lays down the context for the book of Judges in Chapter Two. Judges is a roller coaster ride of blessing and judgment. God worked through the Judges to deliver the people from oppression, which they brought upon themselves in turning to idolatry. It’s a picture of a God who will save anyone who will turn to Him for salvation. It is also a picture of a sin-cursed earth and fallen humanity, both needing a Savior.

And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the LORD, that he did for Israel. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the LORD, died, being a hundred and ten years old. And they buried him in the border of his inheritance in Timnath-heres, in the mount of Ephraim, on the north side of the hill Gaash. And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers: and there arose another generation after them, which knew not the LORD, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim: And they forsook the LORD God of their fathers, which brought them out of the land of Egypt, and followed other gods, of the gods of the people that were round about them, and bowed themselves unto them, and provoked the LORD to anger. And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth. And the anger of the LORD was hot against Israel, and he delivered them into the hands of spoilers that spoiled them, and he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about, so that they could not any longer stand before their enemies. (Jdg 2:7-14)

Whithersoever they went out, the hand of the LORD was against them for evil, as the LORD had said, and as the LORD had sworn unto them: and they were greatly distressed. Nevertheless the LORD raised up judges, which delivered them out of the hand of those that spoiled them. And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so. And when the LORD raised them up judges, then the LORD was with the judge, and delivered them out of the hand of their enemies all the days of the judge: for it repented the LORD because of their groanings by reason of them that oppressed them and vexed them. And it came to pass, when the judge was dead, that they returned, and corrupted themselves more than their fathers, in following other gods to serve them, and to bow down unto them; they ceased not from their own doings, nor from their stubborn way. (Jdg 2:15-19)

We meet Jephthah in Judges 11. He is a Gileadite and the bastard son of a harlot. He wasn’t considered a true Israelite, because his father never married his gentile (strange, other) mother. Jephthah was cast out of his father’s house by his brethren. He went to live in the land of Tob. He became a leader of vain (empty, worthless) men and established a rugged reputation. He led an army. Jephthah was a bloody man without a sacrifice or a way to God (Deu 23:2), as far as the Law was concerned.

The children of Ammon (Gen 19:3 made war against the children of Israel. Jephthah’s brethren came to him and sought his leadership. They fetched (accepted, received) him out of the land of Tob to be their Captain. Jephthah challenged his brethren to acknowledge the irony of their predicament, and he agreed to lead them. He set one condition, that they would follow him after the LORD gave them victory over their oppressors. We are told that Jephthah made a compact before the LORD at Mizpeh (watchtower) of Gilead. This is consistent with the context laid down in Chapter Two, where we are told that God raised up the Judges.

So Jephthah sends messengers to the king of the children of Ammon. The Ammonites claim to seek land that was stolen from them many years earlier by the children of Israel. Jephthah rebukes the Ammonites by reminding them that God was the one who dispossessed them of the land. He preaches to them about the redemptive works of God. He reminds them of God’s deliverance of Israel into the land promised to the seed of Abraham. He even mocks their gods, chiding them to appeal to Chemosh for possessions. Jephthah paints the picture of God’s judgment against those who seek to subvert and destroy God’s message and work of salvation (Num 20-22). This story of Jephthah is a portrait of a bastard who was more faithful than legitimate sons concerning the preaching and teaching of God’s word.

Jephthah’s Vow

And then we come to Jephthah’s vow. The battle so far has just been a war of words. Jephthah recognizes that victory is not possible without God. He submits to God’s judgment in the matter of victory against the Ammonites. He pledges, upon his return from battle, to sacrifice whatsoever comes out of his house as a burnt offering unto the LORD.

Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon Jephthah, and he passed over Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh of Gilead he passed over unto the children of Ammon. And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. (Jdg 11:29-31)

Now let’s just take a few moments to talk about this. Tony Jones relates a foolish interpretation, which he attributes to another pastor, and which frames Jephthah’s vow as a dumb mistake. Such a reading insinuates that Jephthah was hasty and made the vow without thinking. Tony seems to rightly understand that to be a stupid interpretation. When a man vows to give up something that walks out of his house to meet him, he isn’t meaning to offer a toaster or a lamp. He’s obviously thinking of a living object that can move under its own power. So we can agree that Jephthah made a vow to offer a life, right?

But Tony Jones is on a mission to tear down the Bible and promote liberal theology, which majors in a bloodless cross and a Christ who died for social justice. So Tony bypasses illuminating passages of Scripture in order to uses the story of Jephthah as way to preach a social-justice gospel. What does the Bible say about burnt offerings, human sacrifice, and the first-born of Israel? What does the New Testament say about Jephthah? Why does Tony Jones pass over those parts of the Bible?
Let God defend His servant!

The burnt-offering  (olah, holocaust) is the oldest offering in the Holy Bible. It was offered by Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the Levites The Mosaic Law confined burnt sacrifices to the LORD as a practice reserved for the Levites. Deuteronomy 12 is especially enlightening here, because God establishes the law of an appointed place for sacrifices in juxtaposition to the abominations and scattered worship of the heathen nations being driven out of the land. The same chapter, that exhorts Israel to worship at the place appointed by God, also warns Israel of destruction if they offer their children as burnt sacrifices.

Human sacrifice was forbidden in Israel (Lev 18 & 20; Deu 12 & 1 . Those prohibitions are always given with reference to Molech, a god of the Ammonites. Only Ahaz (2Ki 16) and Manasseh (2Ki 21) were brazen enough to named by the Holy Spirit as breaking this commandment. They worshiped Molech at Topheth and scripture records their deeds as abominations. Topheth was in the Valley of Hinnom, close to Jerusalem. God pronounced judgment on Jerusalem for it (Jer 7, 19, & 32). Their captivity in Babylon was decreed to rid Israel of that sin.

Every thing that openeth the matrix in all flesh, which they bring unto the LORD, whether it be of men or beasts, shall be thine: nevertheless the firstborn of man shalt thou surely redeem, and the firstling of unclean beasts shalt thou redeem. And those that are to be redeemed from a month old shalt thou redeem, according to thine estimation, for the money of five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary, which is twenty gerahs. (Num 18:15-16)

The firstborn of Israel were to be set apart for the LORD (Exo 13, 22 & 34; Lev 27; Num 3, 8, 18). Exodus 13 ties the sanctification of the firstborn to God’s redemption of the people from Egypt. Numbers 3 ties it to the special status of the Levites. God took the sons of Levi as a special possession and commanded that the Israelites redeem their firstborn. Numbers 18 deals with the dedication and redemption of the firstborn. The redemption price was five shekels. The Jews were commanded to dedicate their firstborn children and redeem them. The firstborn of their cattle and the firstfruits of their fields were to be dedicated to God. The Levites took provision from the animal and botanical offerings, according to Numbers 18. The offering of firstfruits was also bound to a confession of God’s mercy, redemption, deliverance, and provision (Deu 26). And don’t miss the fact that Deuteronomy 18 connects the sanctification of the Levites, the offerings of first-things, the condemnation of heathen worship, and the messianic hope together!

The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. (Deu 18:15-19)

The New Testament speaks well of Jephthah. The Holy Spirit, through the writer to the Hebrews, gives Jephthah a place of honor (Heb 11). Jephthah is listed there with David, Samson, Samuel, Gideon, and Barak. They are said to have “obtained a good report through faith” not having received the promise (gospel).

What of Jephthah’s Daughter?

The last seven verses of Judges 11 deal with the completion of Jephthah’s vow. Did Jephthah slay his daughter? No! He pledged her purity. The emphasis in these verses is on her virginity. She was forbidden to marry. The Hebrew word for burnt offering, “olah”, means wholly consumed and ascending.

Jephthah was in a position to pledge his daughter as a pure offering in service to God. A father had binding authority over a daughter living in his house (Num 30). She could pledge her soul on some matter, and her father could break the vow with the blessing of God. The father could not break his own vow, but he was given special authority to act on behalf of his wife or daughter. A man could also pledge any other person as an offering at the Tabernacle and pay a redemption price (Lev 27) Jephthah was authorized to forbid his daughter to wed and remain pure as a sacrifice to the LORD. He could make that vow before the priest and pay a redemption price to seal it.

She knew no man (v 39). He mourned, because she was his only child. He undoubtedly wanted grandchildren. She mourned, because it was a shame for women in that day to be unwed and childless. The Hebrew word for lament, “tanah”, also means to celebrate. The daughters of Israel celebrated this uncommon act of devotion.

The Idol of Liberation Theology

The reader has a choice here. One can ignore what Hebrews 11 says about the good report obtained by Jephthah. One can also ignore the many reasons cited here to spare the life of Jephthah’s daughter. Or one can follow Tony Jones and kill Jephthah’s daughter for the sake of idolatry. The big question here is, what is your view of the Holy Bible?

I submit to you that Tony’s view of the Bible isn’t very high. Tony acts very pious, but his chief aim is to promote doubt. Unbelief is an essential ingredient in existentialist theology. Doubt is the leaven that makes Kierkegaardian theology tasty to Tony Jones. That’s why he passes over so many parts of the Bible that speak to the fate of Jephthah’s daughter.  No, Tony wants her to burn so he can promote Jurgen Moltmann’s Liberation Theology. Tony wants her to suffer so he can put God in the fire with her and introduce Bloch’s Marxism into the discussion. Never mind whatever questions it might raise for you about the reliability of the Bible. No, Tony wants your company in the circle of endless questioning at the Emergent church.

You can see God’s holiness and work of redemption here, or you can play the ‘what is truth?’ game with Tony Jones and the New Kierkegaardians.

~ Robert E Burris

The Christian Gospel is always enculturated, always articulated by a certain people in a certain time and place. To try to freeze one particular articulation of the Gospel, to make it timeless and universally applicable, actually does injustice to the Gospel. This goes to the very heart of what emergent is and of how emergent Christians are attempting to chart a course for following Jesus in the postmodern, globalized, pluralized world of the twenty-first century. Tony Jones, TNC, Page 96 (emphasis mine)

I am not ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe, to the Jew first and also to the Greek Romans 1:16

Jesus Christ the same; yesterday, today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8

The very beauty, in my opinion, of the scripture is the very fact that It is universal in its application to the entire world for all of time. In my study this week of Romans 4:1-13, I see this very clearly, especially in verse 3, and in 9-12:

3What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 9Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Paul is writing to Christians in Rome. They came from many different backgrounds, but could be placed very succinctly in two categories: circumcised (Jews) and uncircumcised (gentiles). These two categories are helpful to understanding to whom Paul was explaining this central doctrine to the Christian faith; Justification by faith. The Jews claimed Abraham as their father, Paul explained that He was father to all peoples who followed in His footsteps of being declared righteous because of their faith. Their faith was in what God said (His Word) and in who He sent (His Son, Jesus) Since Emergents like red letters, here is a quote from the latter:

28Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?” 29 Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” John 6:28-29 NIV

Pisteuo is the greek word that is translated belief in this passage, and the meaning is incredibly rich and powerful: 1. to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in 1. of the thing believed 1. to credit, have confidence 2. in a moral or religious reference 1. used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul 2. to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith So the root of our theology must be in what God has said (The Bible) and in whom he has sent (Jesus Christ).

Herein lies the problems with Tony Jones’ theology, because the Bible is not authoratative, it is like any other literature that can be deconstructed. Also, the Bible is not there to order our steps today, rather it is a grand story in which we see Jesus and we ought to emulate His footsteps (what he did) instead of listening to and obeying what he said. Tony makes the excuse in the next several pages of the book TNC that evangelism and other acts of obedience (including believing upon the Name of Jesus Christ alone for salvation) are not necessary, indeed that God can act outside of our obedience. While that is true, Tony, that God can act despite our disobedience, He cannot act out of His character.

Tony goes on in this chapter ( and so will I ) stating that theology is always changing. That is, our God, who is unchanging, indeed the same yesterday, today, and forever, who claims He is the way, the TRUTH and the life, changes, because our opinion about Him is fluid. Tony states that God does not change, yet he says in the same breath that our view of God changes based upon our surroundings, upbringing, culture, etc. In other words, the unchanging God, who wrote the unchanging word must change to fit in the context of our time and culture through our opinion of Him. (theology)

Tony also claims that this deep deconstructive emergent approach to the Bible and to theology is some blessed spiritual gift that he and other liberal theologians alone possess, as he looks down on we simpleton reformers who take God at His Word, recognizing that His Word, in fact, trancends time, culture, tradition and our opinion.

Our theology, while time-tested and well researched is too limited for our emergent friends. Instead of (heaven forbid) evangelizing the lost, we should spend our time in coffee shops deconstructing every word of scripture, making it fit to the ever-changing cultural mores of today. And then we need to do the same tomorrow, because yesterday in now irrelevant. And it does not matter that we take our time not doing what God has clearly called us to do (make disciples of all nations) because God’s actions are not contingient on what we do anyway. Besides, the emergent theologians are deconstructing Hell right out of the scripture, making Christ’s substitutionary sacrifice about mending relationships with one another, ushering a kingdom of God on this earth that we work together with God to bring about (because God is not capable, apparently) and where God’s generous orthodoxy (it does not matter in whom you believe, or in what you believe, just that you are honest about it) will welcome all people into the hereafter and the forevermore after reconciling and restoring them.

Theology does matter, Tony, and it is not an end in itself, rather a means by which we must see who God is in truth and respond in obedience. Theology is not created in a vacuum, rather, it recognizes solid truths about who God is by what He has had inspired to be written (the Bible), the creation (order, certainty, patterns) and the living Word, Jesus. It must be based on the rock, and not on the shifting sand of cultural changes and the intelligence of man.

To be continued . . .

In this dispatch filed by Audie Thacker,  he makes a cogent observation about the thinking behind the emergent morality, and deconstructs the baseball analogy that the author of TNC uses in his book. He also includes evidence for where this new morality leads, and adds valuable information regarding some of the organizations that the emerging church is in fellowship with to the conversation.
*********************************************************

The Strike Zone 

I’ve been thinking about Jones’ use of the baseball strike zone for a bit, since he used that analogy in a paper he presented at a college, and posted that paper on-line. It’s an interesting analogy, very clever of him. He uses it again in his book “The New Christians”. That is what I’m going to refer to here, and maybe even “deconstruct” a little, to borrow their word. He gives the definition on p. 148.

The strike zone is the area over home plate the upper limit of which is a horizontal line at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pant, and the lower level is a line at the hollow beneath the knee cap. The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batters stance as the batter is preparing to swing at a pitched ball.

He then makes the odd statement that “this rule actually leaves a lot of room for interpretation“. Really? Where?

For example, the rules give us a fixed width for the strike zone–the width of the home plate. Having set that, the rules also give the upper and lower limits of the strike zone. So, we have a strike zone width that is always fixed, because the width of home plate if fixed. But because players vary is body makeup, the height of the strike zone will vary from person to person. The rules state where the limits are in relation to each player.

One could, for example, find some interesting analogies here in regards to biblical ethics and morality. For example, there are some things that God says are always wrong–murder, lying, stealing, lust, adultery, homosexuality. These are not up for debate, they are not subject to conscience, God did not consult us when he called those things sins. They are absolutes, just like the width of the strike zone.

But the Bible also makes mention of things that are subject to individual conscience. The Bible refers to eating meat, which some would have no problem with but others may. We are not commanded to eat meat in the Bible, but nor are we commanded to abstain from it. It is a matter of conscience. Many things could fall into this category. Some people are comfortable listening to some kinds of music that others find disagreeable. Some people follow certain church calendar events like Lent, others don’t feel the need. Some celebrate Christmas, others don’t. The important thing is that if one does it, one does it because one believes it is what God would them to do. I can see these as analogies to the relative aspect of the height of the strike zone. Of course, it is also only an analogy. That is, perhaps, a bit of a rabbit trail, but there it is, for what it’s worth.

Sadly, Jones seems to want to relativize the whole thing, when he says that “this rule actually leaves a lot of room for interpretation“. Here is the story he gives from a Stanley Fish, who presumably got it from an umpire or former umpire.

Klem’s behind the plate…The pitcher winds up, throws the ball. The pitch comes. The batter doesn’t swing. Klem for an instant says nothing. The batter turns around and says “OK, so what was it, a ball or a strike?” And Klem says, “Sonny, it ain’t nothing till I call it.” What the batter is assuming is that balls and strikes are facts in the world and that the umpire’s job is to accurately say which one each pitch is. But in fact balls and strikes come into being only on the call of an umpire.

Oh, yes, pity that poor player, thinking that the umpire is actually suppose to make a determination based on a real strike zone on whether or not a taken pitch is a strike or not. How naive of him. One may wonder if the pitch had landed in the dirt three feet in front of the plate and the umpire had called it a strike, upon what basis would Jones argue that the umpire is wrong. The truth is, any given pitch (assuming the batter does not swing at it) is in reality a ball or a strike, based on its position in relation to the strike zone as it passes home plate. That is a FACT.

Now, does that mean that an umpire will call it correctly? No. I can image that calling balls and strikes is not an easy thing. Even the slowest of major league pitcher throws around 80 mph, and the fastest can top 100 mph. Also, the ball curves and slides and rises and falls based on how it is thrown and what kind of spin the pitcher puts on it (not to mention spit or other outside substances). And let’s not even talk about knuckle-balls. In other words, the umpire has to make a judgment based on the position of a small, swiftly-travelling orb at one minute point in time and space, while trying to take into account all of the ways that the ball has twisted and turned on its way to the plate.

Moral Calls

At first, I had thought that the analogy between the strike zone and our pursuit of a moral life may have broken down here. But as I’ve thought about it, they may be more similar then I would have thought at first.

Very often, like the umpire, we must make a decision quickly. If, for example, I’m watching a movie, and a scene with a provocatively-dressed (or undressed) woman comes on the screen, my decision of whether to continue looking or to look away is perhaps not unlike the decision an umpire must make. Many temptations are unexpected, and very often our responses are based as much on our previous decisions when similarly tempted, and even how we have responded to the times when we’ve acted rightly or wrongly in the past.

So let’s make an analogy between a baseball pitch and a temptation. Say that one particular pitch is the temptation to steal something. Whether armed robbery or something more subtle and sophisticated is unimportant, just so long as it’s tempting, and the temptation is strong. You want desperately for the act to be ok, you want to rationalize it, you want badly to do it. It will be good for you, and you can do it with little risk. You can rationalize it (the victim is rich, won’t miss it, and anyway is a scoundrel or cad or witch or all around bad guy), you can excuse it, you can even clear it with your own conscience to some degree. But you can’t do away with that annoying biblical command “Do not steal”.

Thus, you can change your strike zone a little, or at least your perception of it. You can maybe widen it a little, so as to allow for your little theft. Or maybe lower it some, to allow for your now singed conscience. And while the real strike zone remains the same, your perception of it does not match the reality. You’ve compromised, you’ve given in to temptation, you’ve fallen, and now you’re deconstructing the strike zone to excuse what you’re doing.

And so what is good is now called evil, and what is evil is now called acceptable. Instead of repentance and contrition, there is excuse-making and rationalizing. Instead of using the Bible as the measure of what we are to do, we begin to reinterpret and re-imagine and deconstruct it so that in some ways now and others later it is made to agree with us.

Redefining Morality 

Can you see now what’s going on? Can you see now why, of the emergent churches mentioned in the book, several take pride in having members who practice sexual behaviors contrary of plain biblical morality (pp. 69-70, 197-198, 207) and why Jones feels pride in how his church, Solomon’s Porch, doesn’t do things by Paul’s command to “let all things be done decently and in order” (p. 218). Can you see what they’re doing with the biblical “strike zone”? Is it plain how they’ve moved it, warped it, distorted it, and made it all relativistic? Can you see how, having largely abandoned even the attempt to get the “strike zone” right, their thoughts may collapse into almost everything being in their now deconstructed “strike zone”?

Deconstructing The Future 

Where are they going now? Go to the site for McLaren’s project, Deep Shift, and look on it’s Resources page. Look at the types of organizations it links to, as being fellow-laborers in whatever they are attempting to do. The site Wiser-Earth is a part of something called the Natural Capital Institute, which on the Who We Are page puts this quote in an obviously favorable manner…

Montana novelist and river walker David James Duncan points out that the world’s people do not need religious or economic fundamentalists or to save them; we need us for our salvation, and us stands for this huge, growing crazy-quilt assemblage of global humanity that is willing to stand up to the raw, cancerous insults that come from the mouths, guns, checkbooks, and policies of ideologues. According to Duncan, there is a movement afoot in the world that is not merely trying to prevent wrongs but actively seeks to love this world. Compassion and love of others are at the heart of all religions, and at the heart of this movement. “When small things are done with love it’s not a flawed you or me who does them: it’s love. I have no faith in any political party, left, right, or centrist. I have boundless faith in love. In keeping with this faith, the only spiritually responsible way I know to be a citizen, artist, or activist in these strange times is by giving little or no thought to ‘great things’ such as saving the planet, achieving world peace, or stopping neocon greed. Great things tend to be undoable things. Whereas small things, lovingly done, are always within our reach.” Some people think the movement is defined by what it is against, but the language of the movement is about keeping the conversation going, because ideas that inform it never end: growth without inequality, wealth without plunder, work without exploitation, a future without fear.

and this one, from the WISER platform page…

I maintain that truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. Truth, being limitless, unconditioned, unapproachable by any path whatsoever, cannot be organized; nor should any organization be formed to lead or coerce people along a particular path. ~ Krishnamurti

There are two things I want to point out from these, and both may be obvious. First: they are saying that we are the medium of our own salvation, “we” being some kind of global collection of humanity. Second: they, like the EC (is it by accident), use the language of conversation, the conversation does not end, and there are no final answers, no resolution.

These are the people McLaren and Deep Shift are pointing people to, working with, recommending. Are there not Christian organization they could work with? Are their not Christian-based charities they could recommend? Or even organizations that aren’t overtly religiously in nature? Why do they feel the need to point people to an organization that says that we don’t need religion, but that we are the ones responsible for our own salvation?

There is also a third notion that while not explicit, is strongly implicit. In their talk of the “conversation”, some are not invited–religious and economical fundamentalists, and ideologues. Of course, their own statements are statements of their own religious fundamentalism and ideologies, so it is not that they are against ideologies, but stand against ones that are contrary to their own fundamental beliefs. As with all such groups, they are tolerant only of those who buy into their ideas and agenda, and intolerant of those who disagree with them

There are other interesting links there, too. Like the one to Mars Hill Graduate School, whose journal, The Other Journal, has the distinction of condemning capitalism because it works, and supporting extramarital sexual behaviors. The magazine at Faith at Work has one writer telling about visiting a Buddhist temple for some kind of spiritual journey. Consider, as well, this from the blog of Jones’ pastor, Doug Pagitt.

http://dougpagitt.com/?p=87

And here is what Seeds of Compassion has to say about it’s Inter-Spiritual Day (funny, look at the URL for that page, and see how there it is called ‘interreligious_day’).

http://www.seedsofcompassion.org/involved/interreligious_day.asp

Quite a list of diverse people on that page, would you agree? And rather curiously, Pagitt and Bell are invited, and while there may be some hope, for whatever reason I doubt they were invited so they could tell all those in the other religions that they need to repent and put their faith in Christ, and that the Bible is the best place to begin learning how to raise children rightly. No, I suspect they were invited because it had been determined that they would ‘play nice’ with the others, and not make waves. That’s probably why those like Piper, Zecharias, Lahaye, and Driscoll were uninvited. They’d probably disrupt the karma or chi or aura or ambiance or whatever.

~ Audie
*****************************************************
What conclusions can we draw from this excellent observation? I’d like to offer a few.

One way to evaluate a movement is to examine those groups and individuals with whom it “links arms”. In the examples given above, it can be plainly seen that the future of the Emerging Church Movement lies in its willingness to work with groups that are decidedly liberal in their understanding of Christianity, and some who are plainly anti-Christian. We suspect that this linkage comes from a desire to be admired by the world, and a systemic rejection of the Biblical call to stand apart from the culture.

The baseball analogy that the author employs is telling. It speaks of the mind-shift that has taken place in viewing holiness of God as something that can be bent to suit the individual’s own moral bias. That paradigm shift leads to an acceptance of a liberal theology, which in turn leads to compromise with the world system, and a synergy with it that, leading people away from the cross and into themselves for salvation. That viewpoint has more in common with New Age philosophy than it does with the a Holy God who has revealed Himself in the pages of Scripture.

Following the new thought of the Emerging Church will not lead you to a God who can forgive sin and heal your broken soul, but to the god of self, to a god created in your own image, who can neither heal nor save. In baseball you get three strikes before you are declared out. In this life, the third strike can come at any time and you will face the Great Umpire, The Creator God who will judge you. You will see Him face to face. No mask, no bat to swing again, no second chance.

What call will He make on your life?

~ Doug

In this dispatch filed by field corespondent Robert Burris, a critical assessment is made of an emerging brand of theology, and a comparison is drawn between the theology that led to a mass suicide, and the spiritual suicide that may be underway in the emerging church.
******************************************* 

I saw where Tony Jones recently bragged on his weblog about changing his title to Ecclesiologist. Why not? He’s a poor theologian.

While reading “The New KierkegaardiansChristians”, I am reminded of Jim Jones. He was a church leader too. Jim Jones was a sweaty, lecherous, megalomaniac who led his flock to their deaths in a place called Jonestown. They killed themselves by drinking poisoned Kool-Aid which Pastor Jones served to them. Not only was it a case of mass suicide, but it was also a case of murder by bad theology.

Today, whenever someone talks about Kool-Aid in a political, sociological, or religious context, it is a veiled reference to what happened at Jonestown; a person or group led to a harmful conclusion because of “group-think”.  Lacking discernment, people are often drawn to a charismatic leader without giving serious consideration to the theology (in this case) that the leader teaches. Having been led astray, they “drink the Kool-Aid”. They accept the leader and his movement without really questioning him, sometimes with catastrophic results.

Is Tony Jones’ theology poisoned? I think it is.

Having arrived at Chapter 4 – “The Theology Stupid”, I wonder about the people who choose to swallow this drivel. Why don’t they see the flaw in Tony’s theology when he says; “And finally, the world, to which the gospel would be preached was not the planet Earth. The only world known to Jesus was the Roman Empire…” (pg. 98)? Either Tony Jones thinks God is very limited in His knowledge, or he doesn’t think Jesus was God.

Seeing what Mr. Jones says about postmodernism as the ingredient to liberate theology, I have to wonder if Emergers will swallow anything and everything with a “new” label slapped on it. How can they not perceive his subterfuge when he ties “foundationalism” to biblical faith and declares both wrong (pg. 19 & 103)? According to Tony, there isn’t an “indubitable foundation” in the Bible, or for knowing God (pg. 19). Tony Jones replaces the breath of life (Genesis 2:7) with existentialism when he speaks about “conceiving” of being a follower Christ (pg. 103). Tony says his Kierkegaardian theology begets a new way of life!

I‘ve highlighted many such flaws and poisonous contradictions in my copy of the book. I could go on and on, but reading this book is tiresome! Tony and I are worlds apart in what we believe.

Tony says that theology is defined as “words about God” (pg. 47). How is it that Tony’s three pillars of Emergent theology; it should be local, conversational, and temporary — are considered by anyone as being consistent with the Holy Bible? Is God not omnipresent, all-knowing, and eternal? Tony Jones doesn’t seem to think so, and his Emergent brethren seem to agree. According to Emergent theology, their words about God don’t have to agree with the Word of God.

How is it that such a man as Tony Jones can be considered fit to define what a church should be?

Watch out for the poison in the theological Kool-Aid Mr. Tony Jones is serving! Drink from the fount of Emergent theology at your own peril!

~ Robert Burris

You can listen online here:

http://tonyj.net/2008/03/25/what-do-you-think/

********************************

“If I were a betting man, I’d bet - my life or one dollar - that the tomb was not empty. Or that there was no Tomb.” Marcus Borg quoted in “The New Christians”, page 154

The modern skeptic attacks Christianity on three fronts:
1. Creation and the Fall of man
2. The Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth
3. The Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the Final Judgment of the World

The door of the Gospel swings on these three hinges. Take away one, and the Gospel will cease to have any meaning. Why? Because God has revealed in His Word that the Gospel is good news for one reason, and one reason only.

That reason is that Jesus of Nazareth paid the penalty for man’s sin at a specific geographical location, at a specific time in history, and that His sacrifice accomplished exactly what God intended. Sin was the problem from the fall, it was the problem in Jesus time, and it is the chief problem of mankind in our day.

Creation & The Fall of Man

Creation lays the foundation for an understanding of the problem of sin. God has revealed in His Word that He created the universe, and all that is in it, in six literal solar days. If you don’t believe that, your argument is with God, not with me. That creation was declared by God to be good, but man rebelled, and by that man sin entered into the world. Every man, woman, and child is born with a nature bent by sin, and every thought an imagination of their heart is only sin continually. (Gen. 6)

Creation and the fall of man into sin explain the need for a savior. If the account of creation is false, why should we believe the rest? If the beginning of the Book cannot be trusted, why should there be any talk of a church, let alone an emerging one? What a man believes about creation is crucial to understanding where he stands on the orthodox doctrines of the Christian faith. If he rejects the account of creation, one can only wonder how genuine his faith is, or how he apprehends the God who has revealed Himself in a written Word.

The Crucifixion & Resurrection

The second point of attack for the skeptic is the cross and the empty tomb. The emergent view of the cross is that it is symbolic of the suffering of humanity, and “the co-suffering of God with us.” (Pg 14 It is interesting to note that Moltmann, Volf, and “many of the liberation theologians of the late twentieth century” have admittedly influenced the author’s view of the crucifixion.

What is missing, and should be noted by anyone examining the truth claims of the emerging church, is that the author and many of his contemporaries do not get their theology from the scriptures, but from the philosophy of men, from the academy, and from their own musings about their experience. In fact, most of the emergent system is built as a response to some negative experiences of its leaders, as is presented in the chapter on the formation of the emergent movement, as well as the four case studies that are presented as evidence of the inner workings of emergent churches.

The orthodox view of the crucifixion is that it is the moment in time where the payment for sin that came into the world at the fall of man was satisfied. Only Jesus, God in the flesh, could have made a satisfaction for sin. And He did it for you and for me, who are unable and unwilling to save ourselves.

The resurrection then is God’s statement to the entire world unto all eternity that He was indeed satisfied, and that the free gift of salvation from our sin is available to all who will but call upon the name of the Lord, asking for and receiving forgiveness and reconciliation with God Himself.

It’s not about you getting along better with your neighbor, or a supposed envelope of friendship. The cross is about you being reconciled to God, and the empty tomb is about God raising Jesus from the dead in victory over sin and death, so that those who believe in Him will have eternal life that starts in the here and now.

While the cross and resurrection are mentioned briefly, it is clear from the author that the views of many in the emergent church are decidedly not orthodox. They should be rejected outright. And while the author’s view of the resurrection is purposefully unclear, there is nothing to be gained by having a conversation with those who knowingly try to subvert the Gospel in a denial of the resurrection, and a revision of the meaning and purpose of the cross. To consider those who hold these views as brothers in Christ, when they openly deny fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, is neither wise nor profitable. Call me a ‘foundationalist’ if you like, but I prefer to align myself with the Scriptures rather than mislead people into a false sense of security by accepting false teachings and teaching others to do likewise.

The Second Coming of Jesus Christ

The third point of attack is on the Final Judgment, preceded by the second coming of Christ. The emergent view changes the focus away from an eventual return of Christ for judgment, and toward an enterprise engaged in making the world a better place. Rather than see the “narrative” as a revelation of God’s plan to save man from sin, it is the call to “a new way of life”. (Pg 154)

And yet, it should be noted that the emerging church has unhitched itself from the narrative. By denying the truth claims of Scripture, by denying the account of creation, by denying the reality of the empty tomb, and by redefining the purpose of the cross, the emerging church has abandoned all rights to comment on the narrative from which they supposedly get their inspiration to live this so-called “new life”. One has to ask; a new life based upon what?

What value is the new life, if life itself has no meaning? Strip away the empty tomb, and Christianity rings hollow. Take away the need for a savior, and one loses the need to live a new life. As Paul reminds us, “If we have hope only in this life, we are of all men most pitiable.” (1 Cor. 15) Fortunately, the Biblical view on the Second Coming is quite different.

Eventually, on the day that God has chosen, a specific day in the future, God will settle the matter of man’s sin once for all time, in a judgment that every man, woman, and child who has ever lived will experience in their own flesh.

Because that specific Day of Judgment is coming at a moment that no one can predict, it is incumbent upon every human being to come to terms with Jesus. That is, Jesus the Christ, the Jesus that was present at creation, who made all things, who came to live among us, who died in our place, who rose again, who lives forever more, and who is coming again in judgment on a day that God has fixed. (Acts 17)

Conculsion

These three truths: Creation, Crucifixion & Resurrection, and The Second Coming are all foundational to Christianity. They are essential to the Gospel, and without just one the whole system crumbles. That is why skeptics attack on these three points, and all who would examine the claims of men in matters of faith should examine where they stand on these three points.

A careful examination of “The New Christians” reveals a movement that is weighed and found wanting. Anyone who would follow in the footsteps of the emergent church is warned against following the teachings of men like Brian McLaren & Tony Jones. If they call men who deny the basic tenets of Christianity “brothers”, considering them to be of the same faith as them, then one can only wonder what it is that they themselves believe. Any belief system that presents the meaning of Scripture, as a prescription for a “way of life” is a works based, or merit based, system of performance that will lead to eternal destruction.

Sin is your problem. Salvation is available only through the death of Jesus Christ in your place. He was raised in victory over sin and death, and is coming again in judgment. God now calls all men everywhere to turn from their sin in repentance, and to embrace the free gift of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

Repentance is the same message that Jesus preached, it is the same message the apostles preached, and it is the same message the church is called to preach to the culture in our day. The men of the world stand condemned, and all who would seek to be friends with the world (culture) make themselves the enemy of God. Reject the culture of the world, “be saved from this perverse generation”. (Acts 2) Which will you chose?

May you find peace in Christ alone,

~ Doug

Matthew 28:6

“He is not here: for he is risen, as he said.”

1 Corinthians 15:12-19

“Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.”

“If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.”

Peace and Blessings this Easter.

Audie shares some insights in this dispatch about reconciliation in light of the crucifixion, an appropriate conversation to have this week.
************************************
What is reconciliation?

“For you… it’s the fixed point of doctrine that is the litmus test of all ministry. But for us, it’s the Apostle Paul’s call to be ambassador’s of reconciliation in the world. Everything we do in the emergent church is surrounded by an envelope of friendship, friendship that is based on lives of reconciliation. And it’s within that envelope that we have all sort of discussions and debates about the atonement and sex trafficking and baptism and AIDS in Africa.” Tony Jones, The New Christians, page 78

On the issue of reconciliation, Tony Jones takes a curious position. Especially when you consider the scripture he references in the middle of his statement with a footnote. If you examine it carefully, I don’t think it would be wrong to say that he considers “reconciliation” to be mainly between two or more people or groups. He only mentions reconciliation when talking about the “envelope of friendship”, and all that is apparently permitted inside of this envelope is “discussions and debates” about various topics.

One topic of debate mentioned is the atonement, but even then, the atonement itself doesn’t seem to be considered with regard to reconciliation, but only as a topic of debate and discussion (I am rather surprised he didn’t use the emergent cliche “conversation”). But as I said, in the middle of his explanation about reconciliation, there is this footnote, a passage from 2 Corinthians 5:16-21:

“So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

Examine for yourselves how reconciliation is mentioned in this passage. God reconciled us to Himself, through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, having committed to us the message of reconciliation, to give to the world God’s message and appeal, to tell people to be reconciled to God.

I find it strange that Jones would refer to this passage as his basis for calling himself an ambassador of reconciliation in regards to the emergent “envelope of friendship”. Does his position inform us what emergents are teaching people about reconciliation? Or to put it another way, is anything in his statement concerned with people being reconciled to God?

Look further on that same page:
“A generation or two ago, defenses of Christianity that focused on human sinfulness were potent: a common metaphor showed God on one side of a diagram and a stick figure (you) on the other; the chasm between was labeled ‘Sin’, and the only bridge across was in the shape of Jesus’ cross. But emergent’s asked “What kind of God can’t reach across a chasm? Chasms can’t stop God!” Indeed, many emergents will concur that we live in a sinful world…But they will be inclined to attribute this sin not to the distance between human beings and God but to the broken relationships that clutter our lives and our world.”

Consider what’s being said here–for the emergents (in Jones’ words), the main sin, or the main consequence of sin, is not how it has separated us from God, but how it has separated us from each other. Our problem, then, is not how sin separates us from God, but how sin causes “broken relationships that clutter our lives and our world”.

Thus, we see the difference contrasted in Jones’ first statement and that of 2 Corinthians 5. Jones’ idea of reconciliation is simply between people or groups, in the context of an “envelope of friendship”; 2 Corinthians has to do with God reconciling us to Himself through Christ.Jesus’ message and ministry are ultimately about reconciliation: bringing those on the margins back in the center of God’s relationship with the world.

What is the meaning of the crucifixion?

In the author’s view, the crucifixion, when seen as an act of divine solidarity with the suffering and broken world, becomes the event of reconciliation. But when seen as an event of beauty and reconciliation, even in its tragedy, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is the impetus for healed and healing relationship in a world that desperately needs them.

Here Jones tries to inject the crucifixion into his “social gospel”– the crucifixion being solely about those “on the margins”, having nothing to do with first reconciling people (sinners) to God, putting them “in the center of God’s relationship with the world”.

The crucifixion is not about reconciling people (sinners) to a Holy God, but merely about healing relationships with each other. Meanwhile, the passage in 2 Corinthians says otherwise–no mention is made of reconciliation between people, but of God reconciling us to Himself through Christ. No mention is made of some kind of “on the margins” social distinction, but our message is to all. As other biblical passages say, “all have sinned…”, all of us, whether “on the margins” or well inside them, are in the same condition, sinners who need a Holy God to reconcile us to Himself.

In fact, we can look at some of the things Jesus Himself said and find a completely different message from what Jones is saying. Concerning even the closest of family relations, Jesus said “If any man cometh unto me and hateth not his own father and mother and wife and children and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”And again in regards to relationships with others, Jesus said “I have not come to bring peace, but a sword”, and explains that this means that even family members may become the enemies of those who would follow Him.

What are we to make of someone why teaches something like this? Someone who so blatantly “deconstructs” a scriptural passage about God reconciling us to Himself into saying it’s about people getting along with each other? Someone who makes the crucifixion not about how it is the means that God has reconciled us to Himself, but about how it means we should all make nice with each other?

This isn’t some kind of fringe issue. This isn’t about debating what kinds of music are best of church services, or about whether churches should have pews, theater chairs, or couches. It’s not even about the debate between proponents of various end-times views like futurist and preterism, which are important but about which there is room for disagreement.

No, this is central, important, perhaps the most important thing. To hijack God’s message of reconciliation to mean something else, to say that our main problem is not distance from God because of sin but merely broken relationships with people, to say the crucifixion is simply about reconciling people to each other, when even the scriptural passage cited plainly says otherwise, is even more distasteful than his remarks about the Campus Crusade missionaries.

~ Audie
***********************************

One of our front-line correspondents, Robert Burris, comments on the philosophy behind the emergent conversation. And issues a warning to those who lack discernment.
*****************************

I’m getting a real education as a result of reading Tony Jones’ latest book. If the book is any reflection of its author, then I’m pretty sure that this education is not what Tony intended.

Another Allegory

A young Danish man, Soren, grew up under the care of his parents, Michael and Anne (Ane). His father was a legalistic Christian, depressive, and sinner. Michael, Soren’s father, believed that the penalty for his sins would be passed on to his children. Soren’s father was so good at training him in Christian-legalism, that Soren would turn that legalism against the Danish Church. Soren went to Theology School.

His father was undoubtedly pleased. The young man’s fancy turned from Theology to Philosophy and Literature, Soren never really believed. He placed his father in the position of Christ saying, “he died for me in order that, if possible, I might still turn into something.” The father had insisted that Soren should become a Pastor. The boy felt obliged to fulfill his father’s wish. The young man went on to far exceed his dead father’s expectations. Soren became regarded as one of the great minds of his time.

He wrote many books and continues to influence many people to this day. But Soren’s pastorate was a not so successful. He became a farmer (gaard), sowing seeds of doubt around the church (kierke). His theology went askew. He reduced sin to “despair”. He taught that “doubt” is the springboard of Christian faith. This doubt-sowing shepherd taught that is faith founded on unbelief. Soren Kierkegaard continues to influence many Christian existentialists (religious doubters) to this day.

A few generations have sprung up from this Kierkegaardian pastorate of doubt. They represent the mixed multitude of the New Testament (postmodern) era. The religious doubters were keen on church membership. They didn’t think God was working unless they saw some movement.

So, they started a Church Growth Movement. Church became something religious people just do. The doubters raised their children to be religious doubters too. The religious, doubting progeny left home to start their own churches. They said, “Each generation works out what it means to be Christian, so we can too.” 

The New Kierkegaardians sought out teachers who were willing to teach clever-sounding things. Sayings like, “you can’t know the truth, and when you understand that, then you’ll know the truth” became music to their ears. They formed circles around their existentialist teachers and began deconstructing (tearing down) the Holy Bible. Jesus became a cheap cardboard cutout, who said; “The work of God is that ye doubt on him who he hath sent.”  Believe or doubt, what is the difference?

An Alternative Ending

Soren read the Holy Bible, and he recognized that it is the only reliable standard for Truth. He realized that his father lived for him, but Christ was the one who died on his behalf. The young man put Jesus Christ before all other things. He believed in Jesus as The Way, The Truth, and The Life (John 14:6).

The young pastor knew that Jesus is the real sower (Mat. 13:3-9; 13:27) and the true seed is the Word of God (Mat 13:19). He led many people to Jesus through faithful preaching and exposition of the Bible. He taught the members of his flock to feed themselves with the Word, daily. And many churches were spared from the leaven of unbelief masquerading as genuine faith.  Bible-believing Christians were not duped by vain conversation. They recognized that the failures of men are not the failures of God.

What does that have to do with the Emergent Church?

Tony’s “new Christianity” was birthed out of a merger between philosophy (liberalism, according to Tony) and church-growth work. Mr. Jones confesses that very plainly. Tony is not forthcoming about his Kierkegaardian theology, however. You’ll have to follow him closely to get it.

Emergent sycophants refuse to see it, but those of us who read and listen carefully do.  Tony did a couple of interviews, for promotion of the book, where his theology of doubt comes out in spades.

One interview was with John Chisham. It’s an interview that apparently Tony doesn’t want people to see. When asked if he is born-again, Tony replied with a mocking response, at first. Then he spoke about his unbelief and tried to use Mark 9 and John 20 to justify his position as great faith.

Mr. Jones did another interview with Todd Wilken on KFUO’s Issues Etc radio program. In it, Tony becomes evasive and irritable when repeatedly asked biblical questions on church and pastoral responsibility.

Moreover, Tony speaks very plainly about the teachings of Brian McLaren. Jones doesn’t mind attaching the word “heresy” to Brian McLaren, because Tony thinks the word is meaningless. And don’t miss the fact that Brian McLaren made a name for himself with a book about people leaving churches to become New Age evangelists.

 It’s not an accident that Tony quotes Mark 9:24 between his preface and chapter one. These dubious Christian leaders want you to leaven faith with doubt.

Is this comparison unfair? I don’t think so.

~ Robert E. Burris