Sunday, March 23, 2008

Drinking Kool-Aide in the New Jonestown

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 Kierkegaardians Christians”, 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 sweaty place called Jonestown. They killed themselves drinking Kool-Aide which Pastor Jones served to them. It was a case of murder by bad theology.

Whenever someone talks about Kool-Aide in a political, sociological, or religious context, it is a reference to Jonestown. And by the way, the Kool-Aide in Jonestown was poisoned. The poison was the lethal part.

Is Tony’s 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-aide Mr. Jones is serving! Drink from the fount of Emergent theology at your own peril!

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Tony Jones and The New Kierkegaardians

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 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 faith is 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 13:19-23). 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. We have a link to 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.

 

UPDATE: 03/19/2008

The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (LCMS) has suddenly canceled the Issues Etc radio show. Look here.


Why We (I) Reject Evolution As Repudiation Of Genesis One

One word. Abiogenesis.

Evolution, as a doctrine in science, was originally framed in two contexts.  As a foundational theory of Genetics, evolution is the framework for explaining the way environment influences mutations.  As a popular theory in Biology, evolution is commonly thought to provide justification for the notion that life arose spontaneously from dead (“non-living”) matter.

Abiogenesis is the little-used term for the part the theory which claims to explain the origins of life. The abiogenetic explanation amounts to the following; “Special conditions existed way back then. We can’t reproduce the conditions. So, we can’t prove the theory by producing life from dead material. Trust us. We’re working on it.”

So Evolution is half-right. It tells half of the story, because the facts for one half of it cannot be presently established. In fact, Abiogenesis is just a fairy tale.

We find it odd that so-called Christians are willing to put Genesis, Chapter One in the realm of fairy tales…to embrace the false doctrines of men.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

TONY JONES: A church leader for all of the wrong reasons?

I recently saw a classic film entitled "A Man for All Seasons". It was a 1967 movie adaptation of Robert Bolt's stage play. The play and movie are based on Sir Thomas More, who died at the (figurative) hands of King Henry VIII. More was executed by the King's court because he refused to bless Henry's claim as the head of the Church of England. Thomas More's ecclesiastical allegiance was to the Church of Rome, and many Protestants would question the biblical soundness of More's faith. Nevertheless, More was undoubtedly a man of conviction.

Having read Chapter 1 of "The New Christians - Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier" by Tony Jones, I feel like I'm watching a bizarre drama in Theatre of the Absurd style. The primary conviction that Tony seems to project in his first chapter is that American church life is dying and the Emergent church is a life-saving medicine. Jones' treatment of Christianity is both comedic and tragic.

Tony sets the stage in his introduction. Hoping to convince the reader that the movement is an unstoppable organic force, Jones compares the Emergent church to a weed that can't be killed. The funny-sad part of that analogy is that Jesus Christ compared weeds (tares) to the work of Satan in Matthew 13. Jesus used parables to illustrate great spiritual truths. Jones identifies himself, in the very back of the book, as a practical theologian. That apparently means a person who claims to study God, but who believes in the supremacy of pragmatism over Scripture. This first gaffe betrays a disregard for, or ignorance of, what the Holy Bible says about ecclesiastical matters.

The curtain opens as Tony Jones is sitting in the first-class cabin of a airline passenger jet. He weaves a story about a woman assigned to the seat next to him. Jones tells of trying to hide the fact he was reading a Bible as the plane takes off. Tony Jones, practical theologian and spokesman for the Emergent church, is ashamed to be caught reading his Bible!

Continuing on in the second paragraph of the first chapter, Mr. Jones shifts the focus to laptop computers, hers verses his. He tells us that he's busy writing a Bible study on his laptop, but he draws our attention to the woman. He practically gushes over her in his description. Despite using the word "Bible a couple of times, Tony Jones paints a very carnal picture in this opening scene. The climax of the plane ride occurs halfway through the flight, when the woman pulls out a rosary and leans back in her seat to pray. As Tony relates it, she prays to the "Blessed Virgin".

Not being swayed by what the Bible says...Tony Jones overlooks the fact that Mary, the earthly mother of Jesus, lost her virgin status when she had other children (Mat. 12 & 13). He fails to connect Luke 2:21-39 with Leviticus 12:2-6 which demonstrate Mary to be a sinner. Tony doesn't stop to question the biblical ramifications of praying to Mary. No, Tony Jones is on a mission to script an engaging segue to the main act of Chapter 1. Tony's purpose in this airline drama is to hold the woman up as picture of religion that doesn't look like religion.

The woman on the plane is merely a literary tool, a device, to introduce a "spiritual itch" that comes out of "the air". Put those thoughts of 2 Timothy 4:3 and Ephesians 2:2 out of your minds, friends. You're not going to benefit from this chapter unless you cast out all thoughts of the Bible!

The plot of this absurd tale proceeds into a down-hill slide from the sixth paragraph. Jones proceeds to narrate a tour of 20th Century American Christianity. He talks about left and right, claiming that liberalism represents the "high church" and conservatism represents the "low church". He begins to exploit divisions between left and right, so he can put "kite flying", disenchanted Christians squarely in the middle. Christ remains somewhere backstage, muzzled, and out of sight.

Jesus has no part in Tony's Chapter 1 new christian drama. Christ is not mentioned except for a reference to the UCC denomination, and an offhand mention of the term "Christ-like". Jones willfully leaves the Holy Bible and Jesus Christ out of all of his discussion of what a church is or should be.

One of the most comical and tragic highlights in the main act is when Mr. Jones sets up the straw man of "foundationalism" to show us "the real problem". Tony Jones wants you to accept his premise that biblical-faith is self-defeating. He attempts to kill foundationalism by acting out an imaginary conversation between a low-church Bible-believer and a skeptic. Jones lays down a series of vacuous questions and answers to prove that anyone who trusts in the Bible as Truth is a rube. That kind of thinking, to use his words, is "infinite regression". Tony says there isn't any "rock-bottom" foundation that defines what it means to be Christian. (SPOILER, Mr. Jones: Jesus Christ is Truth [John 14:6], the great I AM [John 8:58; Rev 1:8], and the foundation of His Church [Mat 16:18; 1Co 3:11]. Jesus Christ is a foundationalist!)

No, don't walk out of the theater yet! What about the chickens?

If you believe the Bible has no authority in a church or Christian life, then Tony Jones has a church for you. If you think that Jesus is whoever you want him to be, then Tony Jones has a new christian movement you can join. If you are willing to throw your Bible out the window at 30,000 feet, then come join the Emergent church. It's coming soon to a location near you!

Sunday, March 9, 2008

Never mind the tree. What of the root?

I have been neglecting this blog, in part because I've been fighting battles for biblical truth elsewhere. I have been invited to join three other godly men is a deconstruction of a new book by Emergent church leader, Tony Jones.

I don't have the book in my hands at the moment, so the thoughts that follow refer to things that others have written about Chapter 1.  In it Mr. Jones is said to compare Christendom to a forest. He is reported to compare failed churches, faulty theologies, and old methods to a materials in a compost heap. Others tell me that Tony Jones likens the Emergent church to a new tree in a forest, feeding from the better parts of the compost heap of Christendom.

That is the gist of Chapter 1 as I understand it.  I was inspired to today to consider the Root. So I wrote the following.

I was just reading a blog about the Shepherds Conference 2008. I was praising God for allowing me to see and read about men of faith coming together to uphold Truth. I prayed that God would bless the men who spoke there and those who attended. I prayed that such conferences might not be the formation of, or outworking of a man-made system, but of Christ. Something crystallized in my mind as I was praying. My comments follow from that.

I think we can all agree that churches have much to answer for. But we should not uphold the doctrine of Balaam (Rev 2), which is that God cannot bless that which He has promised to bless. God has not promised to bless everything that we see in going on churches. He has promised to bless the teaching and hearing of His Word.

It is right to question and judge ourselves, as believers and churches, to make sure that we are abiding in biblical truth and spirit. But we should be very careful in saying God cannot bless where His Word is faithfully preached. And yes, preaching is not done just with words. Walking (halikah) in faith is demonstrated to a perishing world through actions.

I must admit that I often wonder how (why) God is going to bless Christendom. But I'm not willing to take my questions and lift them up in order to propose a new system. For me, that is entering into the realm of Balaam. I believe that is one of the first steps on the path to gross apostasy. A departure from God starts in the heart and will proceed outward from there.

A tree often represents a system in the Holy Bible. The fig tree (Mat 21) represents a system that is not bearing fruit for God. Mark (11) paints the picture of Christ not knowing if the tree bears fruit as He approaches it (see Luke 18:8). In Matthew, Jesus is clearly headed to the cross and meeting nearly constant questioning and opposition from the Apostates of that time. I agree with those who interpret the fig tree in Matthew 21 as being a picture of first-century Judaism. It represents a broken-down, fruitless system.

If Tony wants to talk about broken-down fruitless systems, then fine. Christians should do that regularly. However, I do not find his propositions to be consistent with the Holy Bible.

Tony seems to want to make Jesus Christ into the 'Great Ecologist', or something much lower. Does Tony read Psalm 22:6 too literally? Perhaps Tony thinks that Jesus is the 'Great Recycler'. The compost analogy may seem very fitting in all of this talk about trees. But it is wrong, because it ignores the Root! Any system that takes it's sustenance from detritus is not of Christ. Christ is not only the Vine (Jn 15:5), but He is also the Root (Rev 5 & 22.) Does Christ, the Creator and author of Life, draw sustenance from the waste of broken-down systems? Is the Body of Christ nourished by dung?

I've looked at the root of the Emergent church, and I have not found Christ there so far. The Emergent movement emphasizes fruit, but what of the root? They seem to have a lot of leaves. I must give them credit for that.


After actually reading the first chapter, I have a different take on it. The interesting thing is that I can say, with even greater conviction, that the Root of David is not there at all.