Tony Jones on Emergent

Tony Jones is the National Coordinator of Emergent, a group comprised of those with interest in the emergent church. In a recent interview with Relevant Magazine, Jones gives some interesting information on his (their) perspective. It would be worth a quick read if you want to understand more about the Emergent's view of themselves without getting it from people who don't always properly represent them, or even tell the truth about what they believe for that matter.

Let me comment on just two things. First, Jones says,

Just this morning, we came out with an anti-statement of faith that explains why we don’t have a statement of faith. I’d say that one of the core principles or convictions is that the very nature of theology is one of conversation and dialogue, not one of setting boundaries and safeguards from elusive historic orthodoxy. The way that we live into historic orthodoxy is by being in conversation with it as it rolls into the future and confronts new cultural dilemmas. There’s no clear-cut orthodox position on stem cell research, for instance. But we as a culture and as a church are going to figure it out by being in a very robust yet respectful dialogue about it. This is how orthodoxy actually works, when we’re in conversation among believers, Scripture and the history of the Church.

I believe Jones is referring to this anti-statement of faith, which I addressed here.

In this brief interview with Relevant, I think Jones confirms that the Emergent doctrinal position is a sign of great theological immaturity. Their non-doctrinal doctrinal statement is a telling sign of the great problems in emergent theology. For all their progress in conversation, they have regressed in doctrine.

To equate a "clear-cut position on stem cell research" with the historic orthodoxy of the deity of Christ or the exclusivity of salvation in Christ by faith alone is staggering. By what possible road can we conclude that these topics are even remotely similar?

I am firmly opposed to embryonic stem cell research. But I realize that bio-medical ethics in an ever-increasing technological world is not as clear cut as other issues. Would Tony really have us believe that a position on stem cell research is somehow similar to a position on the deity of Christ? I would think not, but that seems to be the only conclusion we can draw, absent his clarification. Certainly, I would think that one could be saved while endorsing stem cell research. One cannot be saved while rejecting the deity of Christ.

To reject historic Christian doctrine because technological advances are sometimes confusing is the height of arrogance, it seems to me, especially when you are rejecting things that are clearly revealed because of things that are not clearly revealed. What kind of elevation of man's mind over God's revelation leads to that conclusion?

Secondly, Jones says,

I’m even more concerned that people have statements of faith. Statements of faith are about drawing boards, which means you have to load your weapons and place soldiers at those borders. You have to check people’s passports when they pass those borders. It becomes an obsession—guarding the borders. That is simply not the ministry of Jesus. It wasn’t the ministry of Paul or Peter. It started to become the ministry of the early Church, and it abated somewhat in the Middle Ages and blew back to life in the time of modernity. For the short duration of time that I have on this planet to do my best to partner with God and build His kingdom, I don’t want to spend it guarding borders. I’d like to spend it inviting people into the kingdom. Statements of faith don’t do they. They’re a modernistic endeavor that I’m not the least bit interested in.

This is more of the same kind of thinking that is illustrated above.

The ministry of Jesus was very much about guarding the borders. John 5:39-40 drew a border about the OT revelation about salvation in Christ. Jesus's conversations with religious people was "You're wrong; I'm right" (Matt 23:13ff.). Other similar passages could be cited.

Jesus drove people off with his strong teaching (cf. John 6:66). He took his ministry from great multitudes at the beginning who were impressed by his great teaching and miracles, to no one at the end, since even his closest had fled from him disillusioned by his death. In all of this, Jesus was drawing a border, a border that would ultimately be marked by his death, and who is "in Christ" and who is not.

He calls statements of faith a "modernistic endeavor." It seems to me that statements of faith date back at least to 1445 BC when the Great Shema was given to Israel: "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!" (Deut 6:4). It is hard to imagine that such a statement is not a statement of faith that draws a border. It is even harder to imagine that Jones conceives of modernity stretching back 3500 years.

Paul was a great border guard, as revealed in his epistles. Remember in Ephesus was he delivered Hymanaeus and Alexander to Satan because they were not teaching "the faith." How did Paul know they were not teaching the faith? There was some kind of "doctrinal statement" by which he could evaluate their teaching.

In viewing the NT teaching on doctrine and the borders drawn by it, we can clearly see that borders serve to remind us who is on what team. Do you think that I would be welcome in Jones' "non-doctrinal statement"? I imagine he would draw a border around me, and those who believe like I do.

What is also interesting for its confusion is Jones statement that he wants to invite people into the kingdom. Without borders, how do you know who is not already in the kingdom? Part of being "in the kingdom" is about what you affirm and what you deny, as well as how you live. If there are no borders, then there is no kingdom.

To read something like this recalls to my mind times when a seminary professor I sat under talked about those who want to be more Christian to Christ.

Jones has distorted to position of the historical church on doctrine and borders. And that is what makes this wing of the emergent church dangerous.