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