Foxes Book of Emergents With Hurt Feelings - Tony Jones (Part 4)

Just when you Thought Tony Jones Had Run out of Heresies . . .

Is there anyone out there who can explain to me why Tony Jones of the "Emergent church" has not yet been condemned as anathema by prominent evangelical leaders? How heretical must one be to qualify for excommunication - it is a mystery to me why anyone would even refer to him as a Christian. Whatever he talks about never even remotely represents orthodox Christianity.

Not only is Tony endorsing unrepentant homosexuality as a lifestyle fully compatible with practicing Christianity. Not only is Tony embracing radical pro-abortionist and Universalist Barack Obama as a genuine Christian. Not only is Tony (or more specifically the emergent village) saying "so long" to sola scriptura. These provide just a snapshot of the heretical lunacy that Tony Jones tries to pass off as legitimate theology. But wait, there's more! Tony decided he wanted to take heresy to levels previously unseen among heretics who masquerade as Christians. And for that - I have to tip my hat to you Tony. While Brian McLaren and Rob Bell continue to sprout their unbiblical nonsense in a fog of christianese, Tony Jones decided to dispense with the fog and put up a big red flag for all those remaining with any degree of discernment.

The leader of the leaderless emergent movement has now decided to reject the doctrine of human depravity - you know the one which says that all people are sinners and deserve the wrath of God. The first question that sprung to my mind was "doesn't he have any children?". Unlike Bill Clinton, I think Tony must have "inhaled" something. Exactly what planet does he come from?

When I was growing up in a moderate, centrist church -- somewhere between mainline Christianity and evangelicalism -- Original Sin was a given. I first learned about it in youth group, and we regularly talked about it. Actually, it's more accurate to say that we talked about a life with Christ, and the notion of Original Sin was in the background. It was assumed. And I cannot remember that it was ever debated.

In other words, I assumed that the doctrine of Original Sin was a biblical notion, and that all Christians accepted it as gospel truth. Of course, neither is true . . . while in college, I also took a class on the theology of Augustine from an eccentric professor, Charles Stinson, and therein I learned that the great father of Western theology was the author of the doctrine of Original Sin. Of course, Augustine was not making it up ex novo, but was taking as his inspiration the account of creation in Genesis 3 and certain Pauline texts.

In seminary, I learned from John Thompson that John Calvin and his theological heirs reified the notion of Original Sin and that it hadn't played much of a role in medieval and Scholastic theology.

And sometime later, I discovered that whole branches of the Christian family tree -- most notably, the Orthodox Church -- has never embraced Original Sin.

I have come to reject the notion of Original Sin. I consider it neither biblically, philosophically, nor scientifically tenable.

So he considers it neither biblically, philosophically, nor scientifically tenable? Notice he doesn't qualify any of these outrageous claims. Not only is Jones not being honest in his own self assesment, he has to highlight large portions of Scripture with a black felt pen and avoid all social interaction in order to hold to this. There is so much Scripture plainly stating human depravity but I'll wield only one in the interests of an already lengthy post:

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned (Romans 5:12).

And Tony seems to think it is an idea invented by Augustine and the Reformers. Furthermore, I can watch the news or my kids to see the "curse" in action. I didn't have to teach my children to lie or be selfish. Oh no, they were all born with a PHD in rebellion. If someone as thick as me can figure this out . . . .

Bare in mind that Tony is the "theologian in residence" at Doug Pagitt's church, "Solomon's Porch". They might as well rename it "the ditch" because that's the place you go when the blind lead the blind.

We need to pray for Tony Jones, the guy is seriously lost!

Go Back To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

Foxes Book of Emergents With Hurt Feelings - Tony Jones (Part 3)

Tony Jones and the F-Bomb

After a fairly large amount of exposure to the "emergent conversation" it has become apparent that the use of coarse language is fairly commonplace. This is obviously not the case for every individual who is a part of the "emergent village" but it certainly seems to be an alarming trend.

It is no surprise when the national corodinator of the emergent village is not averse to some of the worst forms of "colorful language". Tony Jones speaking about the Bible wrote:

"This connection between deconstruction and the Bible is especially meaningful, methinks. I am quite convinced that the Bible is a subversive text, that it constantly undermines our assumptions, transgresses our boundaries, and subverts our comforts. This may sound like academic mumbo-jumbo, but I really mean it. I think the Bible is a f***ing scary book (pardon my French, but that's the only way I know how to convey how strongly I feel about this). And I think that deconstruction is the only hermeneutical avenue that comes close to expressing the transgressive nature of our sacred text."

There it is, a great case of bad theology and bad language going hand in hand. Tony Jones, "theologian in residence" at Doug Pagitt's fellowship otherwise known as "Solomon's Porch" drew deep from his well of Christian apologetics and stated (concerning the issue of swearing):

“People in the Bible swear. And we need to re-think the cultural context of swearing.”

Really Tony? Do you really need to use that language? Is it the best witness to the fallen world around us? When Paul writes to the church in Ephesus:

Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. (Ephesians 5:4)

is it possible that your coarse language could fall into this category. Tony Jones would argue in the negative but either way is it really worth taking speculative chances with the word of God or erring on the side of caution in order to take care not to offend God. The Bible makes a very strong case against offending God - think Ananias and Saphira - and also to avoid the appearance of evil.

Here is an interesting article I found on the subject so you can make up your own mind:

Why any Christian would fight for the liberty to use foul language is beyond me, but there is a growing debate as to whether cussing is appropriate for the believer. Let’s start with two basic facts:

First, There is no verse in the Bible that specifically says, “Thou shall not use any of these words,” followed by a list of the most common cuss-words of our day. Second, the verse most people use to argue against the use of foul language is Ephesians 4:29: “Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth . . . .” As the second half of the verse seems to indicate, the “unwholesome word” Paul has in view here is probably not a reference to individual cuss-words, but rather to unkind, unhelpful, or untrue statements or messages that would tear a fellow believer down rather than building him up.

Having said that, I wouldn’t want anyone to rush to the hasty conclusion that cussing is appropriate. In my view there are at least six reasons to conclude that cussing is inappropriate for believers.

1. Many of the words known as cuss-words are descriptions of immoral acts, filthy emissions of waste from the body, or private body parts. Whatever the original meanings of these words, these vulgar meanings are undoubtedly connected with them now. When a person uses one of these words, he is calling to mind one of these acts or objects. With this in mind, remember that Paul tells Christians to dwell on things that are honorable, pure, lovely, and excellent (cf. Phil. 4:8). When you use language that calls to mind some obscene act or private body part, you are not only dwelling on the wrong objects yourself, you are also making it difficult for your hearer to focus on the right things.

2. The Christian who uses foul language in public wastes the opportunity to set himself apart from many unbelievers who commonly say the same things. The fact is, the person who does not know you but hears you fire off a cuss-word in a sentence would not likely think, “Now there’s a fine Christian man (or woman)”? Your speech leaves him with no reason to suspect that you are any different than everyone else, and therefore, gives him no reason to listen to what you might have to say about Christ.

3. Paul wrote to Corinth, saying, “Give no offense either to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God” (1 Cor. 10:32). He did not want Christians to offend anyone unnecessarily, not even the unbelievers around them, and certainly not a fellow Christian. He was not referring to the offense of the gospel, of course, or an offense taken by someone who despises certain Christian beliefs or practices. Cussing is not part of the gospel message, however, and it certainly is not an essential Christian practice. Therefore, if even a single Christian (or an unbeliever, for that matter) is offended by your foul language, you have sinned.

4. Many movies receive an “R” rating because of foul language, meaning that even unbelievers recognize that cussing is inappropriate, at least for children. Additionally, in many public parks and other venues, the use of foul language is prohibited altogether. Frankly I find it shameful when Christians claim as a personal liberty that which even our pagan society recognizes as offensive.

5. Given the fact that the tongue is “a restless evil and full of deadly poison,” that which cannot be tamed and which “defiles the body” (James 3:6, 8), Christians should have as their “default setting” a natural suspicion of what comes out of their mouths. This thought is affirmed by Proverbs 10:19 which says, “When there are many words, sin is not lacking.” The fact is, the more you say, the more likely you are to sin. Using these biblical principles as a guide, if there is any question as to whether or not something produced by the tongue is sinful, we should always err on the side of caution rather than appealing to our liberty.

6. One would hope that Christians who claim the liberty to cuss in public, among their families, or even in the presence of other believers, would at least find such language unthinkable in the presence of Jesus Christ. The fact is, however, if you would not cuss in His presence, then you cannot cuss with a clean conscience at all because as Jesus said, “I am with you always, even to the end of the age” (Matt. 28:20).

I would never want to rob a believer of any genuine Christian liberty, but our liberty in Christ is not “the right to do whatever is not explicitly prohibited.” Christian liberty is freedom from the slavery of sin (Rom. 6:16-22), freedom from the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13), and freedom to “have as our ambition . . . to be pleasing to [the Lord]” (2 Cor. 5:9).

Judge for yourself, but please make your highest aim to glorify God in all that you do and say (cf. 1 Cor. 10:31). And remember as you judge that “there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks” (Eph. 5:4).

Go On To Part 4
Go Back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1

Foxes Book of Emergents With Hurt Feelings - Tony Jones (Part 2)

We've already read and heard the shocking views that Tony Jones (national coordinator for the Emergent Village) has concerning the authority of Scripture and his acceptance of people who practice homosexuality and claim to be Christian.

As I mentioned in the previous post, Tony is one of the few emergents willing to be clear and open about his agenda - which is why I am amazed that he still gains acceptance as a legitimate Christian teacher. He was one of the most vocal supporters of staunchly pro-abortion President elect Barack Obama. He recently appeared on "Way of the Master Radio" to debate Christian pro life apologist Scott Klusendorf one day prior to the US presidential election. Click Here to hear the debate which begins 21 minutes into the program.

A theme that emerges throughout the debate is that Tony Jones takes a pragmatic approach (even by his own admission) that is not really well thought out even as far as pragmatism goes. Todd Friel who hosts the program later informed me that the audio was lost for the closing part of the debate which was apparently very zesty and revealing. Nonetheless, the audio that remains is very interesting fly on the wall stuff in trying to understand the trainwreck that is "emergent theology".

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

Foxes Book of Emergents With Hurt Feelings - Tony Jones (Part 1)

Why I Applaud Emergent, Tony Jones

This Blog has had some very severe criticism of the emergent movement and justifiably so. Laden with heresies cloaked in vague and ambiguous language, it is the key proponents of this movement that pose one of the greatest dangers to our undiscerning youth culture. Tony Jones is the "theologian in residence" at Solomon's Porch which is a fellowship of people in Minnesota having their minds corrupted by the heretical teachings of Doug Pagitt and Tony Jones. The truth is that everyone is a theologian - the question is whether you are a good one or a bad one. And Tony Jones falls easily into the latter category.



But the great thing about Tony is that unlike the continual fog of a Brian McLaren or Rob Bell, the "theologian in residence" keeps sending up red flag after red flag making it patently obvious to any genuine convert that they had better run away as fast as they can. Thank you Tony for being overt in your heretical ideas. We've already heard Tony's heretical view on the New Testament writings of Paul. What follows is another great example of a big red flag:

Tony Jones on Unrepentant Homosexuality
In "Same Sex Marriage Blogalogue: How I Went from There to Here" Jones has removed all doubt as to his position, and that which he feels the Body of Christ itself should take, regarding those who are unrepentantly practicing the sin of homosexuality:

And yet, all the time I could feel myself drifting toward acceptance that gay persons are fully human persons and should be afforded all of the cultural and ecclesial benefits that I am. (”Aha!” my critics will laugh derisively, “I knew he and his ilk were on a continuous leftward slide!”)

In any case, I now believe that GLBTQ can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.

Marsha West at Renew America had this to say:
After years of pondering and praying, praying and pondering, he managed to come up with the wrong answer. How do I know this? Because his "revelation" doesn't line up with Scripture.

Evidently what the Bible teaches on sodomy made Tony feel uncomfortable, so he decided to hold back his opinion until he could come to terms with what he was "feeling." I say "feeling" because his conclusion doesn't comport with the written Word of God.

When people like Tony play fast and loose with God's Holy Word these are the atrocities that occur. It will be all downhill from here for Tony unless he repents - and he's already a long way down that hill.

Go On To Part 2