Deconstructing: “The New Christians”

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