One of the best ways to believe God is to walk in faith. I don't know Josh Rittenhouse, or his mother, Carol. But I believe we worship and trust the same almighty savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. And they need help. I heard about them through Lane Chaplin's blog.
I plan to trust God and pledge a monthly gift to help pay for Carol's medications. I hope you will do the same.
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 to fight is against Jones’ shameful treatment of Judges 11. Tony abuses the story of Jephthah and his daughter (pg. 145-148) 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 Jeffrey 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.
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 19:38) 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.
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 use 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?
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 & 18) . 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).
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 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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
