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
Doug
pastorboy
Recent Comments