Deconstructing: “The New Christians”

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

1 Corinthians 15:12-19 “Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up-if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.”

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

What is the Gospel?

At several points this past week, the resurrection of Christ came up in the conversation, either through the text of the book or in listening to the radio interview that Tony did with Todd Wilken on Issues, Etc. In light of the coming celebration of Easter Sunday, a conversation about the resurrection is appropriate.

The bottom line on his view of the resurrection is that people who do not believe that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead are considered to be fellow believers, or Christians. I do not know if he believes in the resurrection. So far, in my reading and listening, he hasn’t said. But what he has said is somewhat troubling.

His use of the word “Christian” is almost always done with a qualifier attached to it. It will be “Anglican Christian”, “Baptist Christian”, “Roman Catholic Christian”, or some other denominational moniker stuck on the front end. His has a very shallow view of what it means to be a Christian, with no consideration given to the distinctive doctrinal positions of any of the groups that have gathered themselves around the various denominational labels. He often cites an undocumented statistic that there are supposed to be some 18,000 or so denominations as evidence that man has fractured the community of “Christians” into some kind of meaningless sectarian (similar to congressional redistricting) division of Christianity to suit the divider’s own political ambitions.

Or something like that, because he isn’t exactly the most coherent communicator. Even when he tries to define words and terms, it almost always comes across as mush. Take his definition of the Gospel for instance:

“The irreducible good news of God, ultimately delivered in the person of Jesus Christ. In other words, a reality that can not be summed up in a call-out box.”

Huh? If you take out the fluff, it is the “good news of God”. What good news? About what? Which God? Why should I care? This is really a non-definition. He considers this type of “definition” to be good, I suppose, because it is like an ice breaker at a party, and gets the conversation started. But will a conversation really meet their need?

If you meet a man who is dying of thirst, he doesn’t want a conversation about water, HE WANTS THE WATER! And what about the woman who doesn’t know she is dying? Time and time again, both in his book and listening to him give an interview, he never “lands the plane”. He doesn’t like landing the plane, and apparently thinks that it is cute to withhold vital information from dying people. If he really wanted to define the Gospel, he could have quoted 1 Corinthians 15:1-11. (If you haven’t lost your Bible, look it up for yourself and read what a real definition looks like.)

But I suspect that he revels in the confusion he creates with his words. Aside from mockery, that is one of the main characteristics of his writing. He is purposefully confusing because he does not believe that handing out answers to theological questions facilitates his creativity. Give me a break.

As a self described theologian of sorts, his theology is muddled at best. That he rejects the authority of Scripture is simply demonstrated by his reticence (or inability) to deliver even the tiniest exposition of the Scripture as the answer to his, or anyone else’s, questions. And his rejection of the Bible as both authoritative and infallible is clear on page 124 as he mocks “creationism” and their belief in a “young earth” in spite of the “scientific consensus” to the contrary.

As an aside, and regarding so-called scientific consensus, one wonders if the author has ever considered that the scientific consensus at one point in human history was that the world is flat? He rails against certainty in matters of faith, in spite of overwhelming evidence that testifies to the veracity and perspicuity of God’s Word. Claiming that we can’t know tomorrow what we might be wrong about today, he apparently accepts as fact the theory of evolution citing “scientific consensus”.

Now think with me for a moment. If you can’t trust God is Genesis, why trust Him in the rest of the Book? If Genesis is wrong, what is the point of inviting someone to become a follower of Jesus in any context? What is the point of being a follower of Jesus at all?

Is it because you live a better life, in harmony with nature and your fellow man, and at peace with the God who claimed to have created the universe out of nothing but was really lying? Better than whom? Atheists are capable of living an ethical lifestyle with a low carbon footprint. What do you really need a god for?

Other than providing a psychological crutch to help you make it through life, the author’s god is both small and unnecessary. If his god can’t be trusted to tell the truth, why follow him?

The Sacred vs. The Secular

It is clear from his retelling of the beginnings of “emergent” that this movement has chosen to follow the philosophies of men rather than the Word of God. He rejects the separation between the secular and the sacred, and holds that up as a virtue of the emerging church. And he does so with an apparent blindness to the warnings from God in the pages of the both the Old and New Testament that the people of God are called to be separate from the culture of the world.

In the Old Covenant, the nation of Israel was called to be separate from the nations that surrounded them, warned against following after their gods, adopting their worship practices, absorbing their culture. In the New Covenant, the church is the ecclesia which literally means “called out ones”. If you want to ask a question, maybe you should start with “called out of what?”

It is because of his rejection of the authority of Scripture that he is unwilling to offer the Word of God as a definitive answer to any question. That is why he does not recognize the doctrinal distinctive that make the denominations unique, and does not have the ability to distinguish between true and false “Christians”, a concept presented very clearly in God’s Word.

What is a “Christian?”

He often quotes statistics that there are billions of “Christians” in the world today, yet his definition of what it means to be a “Christian” is apparently so loose that one wonders if the only requirement, and that may be asking a bit much, is that the candidate have a pulse. That is why, in spite of the passage I quoted at the beginning, he can consider as his fellows those who deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Read that passage again carefully. If Jesus of Nazareth has not risen, if He is not physically alive right now as you are reading this, then your faith in is vain, and you are still in your sins. So is everyone who denies the resurrection. Get that? “Still in your sins!” And in spite of the author’s insistence that preaching repentance and forgiveness of sins for the purpose of seeing people obtain eternal life is not the aim of the Gospel, God, through Paul, adds the following: “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.”

Life without the Risen Christ is a pitiful life. If there is no resurrection, there is no hope. And if you don’t believe the God who has revealed Himself in the pages of Scripture, starting with the book of Genesis and His own account of creation, then you have constructed a false god of your own making and have believed a lie.

The author’s version of Christianity is a mosh pit of uncertainty, populated by the lost, clawing and scratching their way to a god of their own design through the folly of human effort. If you choose to put your trust in human wisdom and the philosophy of men you are identifying yourself with the darkness of this world and stand condemned. That is the condition of the sinner, and the fate that awaits the one who rejects God as He has revealed Himself.

Only One Gospel

That is what His Word says. In plain speaking language that can be easily understood by those who have ears to hear and eyes to see the truth. There is only one Gospel, and the gospel of the emerging church is not it. Their gospel will not lead you to the true Christ, to the one who can save you from your sins and give you living water. The man or woman who drinks from this water, that is Christ, will never thirst.

Your sin is the problem, and it won’t be solved by “doing something” or working within the context of the “kingdom of God”. Your most important problem is not with the church, or the evangelicals, or the main line denominations. It is not with the right vs. left, politics, or global warming. It is not found in the angst that you feel inside, or the problems of your past, or the bad experience you had with the cranky old church lady who gave you a dirty look because you sat in her pew.

It is not the fundamentalists who keep you from finding the true Kingdom of God. It is your sin and your love of the darkness that keeps you from the truth. That is what the Word of God says, and you are why He said it. He does not desire that you should perish, but that you should come to repentance. And repentance means that you and I need to turn from our sin and the darkness and the culture, 180 degrees, and accept the Risen Christ and all that He is and has done on our behalf. We accept as true what he says about us, our sin, and the solution for that sin. We accept as true what Jesus says about Himself, about God, and about the reality of the eternity that awaits us all.

Having done that, we accept as true what he says about the world around us, the culture, and our place in that world. He calls those of us who have been saved from our sin to be faithful to His Word, to meditate on it, and to learn from it. He calls us to reject the culture of sin, and to embrace the culture of Christ. He calls us to be separated from the world’s system, which He calls evil. He calls us to walk with him as He lives inside of us.

The Christ living inside of very true Christian is the creator of all that is, who came here to live among us, to die and rise again in victory over sin and death, and who gives us eternal life when we trust in Him alone for salvation from this sin, and the culture of sin, that is our ruin. In Him we have the certain hope that we who have embraced Him, (and all that He says He is through His revealed Word) in this life will be embraced by Him in the life and world to come.

And while we are not always successful, we stumble and fall, we hurt one another and cause great pain in our lives and the lives of those around us, He calls us to live lives of repentance and reconciliation. To come again to the living water of Jesus Christ, to drink and be refreshed. To begin again.

We live these new lives in community with our fellow believers, those who have accepted the crucified and risen Christ and take Him at His Word. We live because of the life that is within us, because of Christ, through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and walk by faith that is certain and have a hope that is sure. That is what God’s Word says. That is what a Christian believes.

Who are you going to believe, God or Tony Jones?

Until next time, peace.

I was a young adult when the classic movie “The Karate Kid” came out. It was great fun watching the underdog succeed. I appreciate it more, however, for the funny yet wise sayings of Mr. Miyagi.

One came to mind while I was reading chapter 2 and 3 of TNC. “You walk down the street. Right side, safe. Left side safe. You walk in middle; squish like grape.” The moral of the story? The third way that Tony speaks about regularly in this book is stinking dangerous!

Tony tries desperately to compare this third way with the Protestant Reformation, and he is left wanting. During this reformation, he forgets that the true church, that had existed for 1500 years (much of it underground) was the lava that burst forth through the crust which was the Apostate Roman Catholic System.

Martin Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Tyndale, and others, for all their foibles, were men who were not seeking a third way, rather, they were seeking God’s way in coming out of the prison system of the false Church of Rome.

During this ’soul searching’ comparison, a few things come out about Tony and Emergent. First, and one that really calls into question whether these people are really Christians at all is the attack on the truth of the scripture. Tony will say that these are people having a conversation, but on page 19, like Rob Bell does in his book Velvet Elvis, Tony slyly calls into question whether the Bible can be trusted.

Tony argues that emergents desire to question the foundations, even the Bible. In doing so, He calls God a liar. He also opens the door to deconstruct the Bible like it is some normal book of literature. In fact, Tony does not see the Bible as a Holy Book, rather, He sees it as propaganda. Page 45 is very telling, where Tony compares the Bible to Mao’s little red book. Is the Bible really to be reduced to this type of propaganda?

Back to the third way. On page 45, he sets the stage, calling into question reading the Bible in a healthy way, saying that most evangelicals read the Bible to prove their views to be right concerning homosexuals and women in leadership. These would be those on the right, both politically and religiously, those rotten fundamentalists. Then those on the left, both religiously and politically, those mainliners, who view the Bible with skepticism. These groups fight a continual tug of war. They fight between church polity, political parties, right interpretation of scriptures, social issues, and cultures. These wars between right and left have turned off these emergents, causing them to want to drop out. Then there is the third way.

The third way is to not be beholden to any one church- the church is organic, and as we cultivate our way through life we find different places in our culture that we can see God, and therefore those things are right and good. There is no sacred and secular- everything is sacred! We do not want to impact culture, nor do we want culture to impact us. Really, there is no culture. We want to do things in the way of Jesus, how he loved and accepted anybody.

The thought of wrath and judgement does not align with their view of Christ, so they leave that part out. Those in the third way do not hold to any political parties, rather, they pick and choose which planks are important to them. They don’t like the parties, (but they will vote for Obama because of a sense that he is anti-establishment, and brings a subjective feel of hope) Of course the Bible is a sacred text, but the third way stays away from terms like inerrant and sufficient, they do not believe that it is sufficient for doctrine.

They believe that it is living, not in the way that it says, but in the way that culture (which does not exist) can help us understand that Paul did not really mean that women shouldn’t be leaders in Church, or that homosexuality is a sin that will separate from God. No, homosexuality is to be honored and understood, and we should be accepting. After all, Jesus is a welcoming guy. He is our good buddy in the sky. He is not going to judge us, because we are joining with him to bring our picture of his kingdom here to earth.

Mr. Miayagi had it right. The emergents Third way is unsafe (just the way they like it) Unfortunately, they will wind up being squished like the proverbial grape when that truck of judgement and wrath that they do not believe in runs them over.

~ Pastorboy