Tony Piper and John Jones and the Spirit of Unity
A friend of mine sent me this recently:
_________
Anyone who has spent any amount of time in a church or in the Christian blogosphere knows that the body of Christ is easily divided over many issues, some of which are hardly worth arguing over much less dividing over. Christ Himself recognized how easily His bride would turn on herself, and prayed for her in John 17:
“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.
Paul, too, was concerned over the potential for division in the very churches he had planted. In Ephesians 4 he writes:
Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.
All too often we have seen within various internet battlegrounds unity being the first thing shattered through the drawing of battle lines between emergent and Reformed bloggers. Perhaps, the unity of the Bride and Body of Christ can be at least a little less tattered if we focus on what those two groups have in common, rather than the differences.
Let’s start with Reformed preacher, theologian and all around influencer of Reformed Christians everywhere John Piper who writes:
So my take on this prophetic word is that the scare will probably do good for a lot of people. The Bible is a scary book. And the future that is coming on unbelievers is scary beyond anything any preacher could conjure up.
But my own effort to be discerning says: Stick with the Bible, David. It is scary enough.
Next let’s move onto emergent hipster and communicator Tony Jones who writes:
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 [...] scary book
What’s fascinating about both of these quotes from two movers and shakers (that’s a small s for the discerning individuals among us) writing from what seems like opposite ends of the spectrums is that both are writing from almost exactly the same place. Both Tony Jones and John Piper are reacting to people who they believe are misusing the Bible. Both are concerned that the people they are writing about are missing the message of scripture and both are concerned that the scriptures are delivering a message of the utmost importance.
Perhaps, if these two often opposing groups of Christians would focus on what they have in common, the truth of the scriptures, we would see a little more of the effort Paul wrote about that will result in the unity of the Spirit, rather than the divisiveness that so often defines the relationship between these two groups of brothers and sisters.
______________
I think he makes some very good points here. I would wholeheartedly endorse his sentiment…
![Image of The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31Jl6fhDLxL._SL75_.jpg "The Prodigal God (An Unabridged Production)[2-CD Set]; Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith")
58 Comments(+Add)
Amidst all the doctrinal hashing is missing grace, humility, and God’s love. I find many ODMs pounce on almost anything while some emergents refuse to detour momentarily to speak clearly and then return to emergent vernacular. And the word “heresy” has become more widely used than it should be in order to manipulate it for selfish purposes.
Consubstantiation – heresy.
Infant baptism – heresy.
You get the picture, my point being we could easily call a lot of things heresy. Heresy is primarily for issues about Christ and salvation and should be used carefully and circumspectly.
How about this type of format in disagreement:
Rob Bell is a gifted pastor who has some interesting perspectives on Scripture. He seems to love Christ, he is a family man, and it does seem like people are helped spiritually at his church. I think I disagree with some of his views, but in reality I cannot be so sure since I don’t always understand his verbiage. I think I might have to leave it all to God and just pray for him.
* That approach may just be what the world needs to see among the brethren as we strive to be unified concerning Christ and His gospel.
Speaking of unity, as if on cue Ingrid defends her blog with this. I love this disingenuous quip:
I wonder why they don’t “come to” me? And this comical statement:
John MacEnroe would scream “You cannot be serious!”. And then there is this breathtaking and self serving misrepresentation:
I guess her love for those lost souls does not include the gays, the Hollywood crowd, the liberals, and the entire parade of people that she has castigated in the past and will continue as information about those she “loves” inadvertantly “comes her way”.
Hubris continues to find a voice.
Rick,
I am not sure if I am dreaming or what, but, uhm……well……I, I, I…..I agree with everything you’ve said 100%. Someone pinch me. After reading what you’ve posted here, I’m not quite sure why we’ve ever argued about anything…….I’m quite beside myself with joy.
Let’s stay friends. Be good over the summer. I hope we have some classes together next year.
Richard Abanes
Mrs. Claymore’s English 201
That’s funny, when I see the Biblical definition of love I don’t see any of it anywhere on her blog. I don’t see any sacrifice of self, I don’t see any doing to other as she’d have them do to her, I don’t see any cross bearing. All I see is self-glorifying articles that crucify those that Christ died for.
Or to put it another way:
Richard – cut your meds in half.
I think you should have included Jones’ entire quote. Accuracy.
Chris, you’ve gotta be kidding me. You assert that emergers like Jones and orthodox like Piper can stand on common ground in that they affirm the truth of Scripture?
How does that jive? Isn’t Tony the one who recently declared that he doesn’t believe in original sin? How do you justify stating that he believes in the “truth of Scripture” when it’s fairy clear that he doesn’t.
Furthermore, the ones who point out false doctrine are not the ones who cause a breach in the unity of the church. The ones who teach false doctrine are the ones who are being divisive.
Dave – the original sin issue has been debated by people and does not necessarily indicate heresy. I understand your concern with unbiblical unity, however do you believe labelling Ravi Zacharious under the category of “apostate” is acceptable?
As long as you guys allow women to step into male roles your affirmation of the truth of Scriptures is faulty.
Rick, I’m not here to weigh in on Ravi. I don’t know enough about him or his ministry.
I’m stating a general principle that the ones who promote false doctrine are the ones causing division, not vica versa (cf. Romans 16).
Who exactly do you mean by “you guys?” My pastor is a man.
Rick, one more thing.
Because an issue has been debated for hundreds of years does not necessarily indicate that it is not a matter of heresy.
As an example, abortion has been debated in this country for the last several decades, and from both sides of the isle at that. One side is fatally wrong.
Dave,
You can’t, on the one hand, claim the supremacy of scripture, and then on the other hand excoriate someone for not believing a term that isn’t found in scripture for not believing the truth of scripture.
Its clear that you’re not relying on scripture, but rather man-made categories that you’ve already defined. Just look at how you categorize Piper and Jones. Piper the Orthodox, and Jones the Emerger. No further need for debate, the matter is settled, just look at their titles!
Also, within Christendom abortion hasn’t been debated for hundreds of years. Its been less than a hundred, and its only been debated in a few small circles.
Your grasp of the history of theology seems tenuous.
“My pastor is a man.”
Does he operate under the authority and discernment of the church women?
Dave,
Once again, you are speaking in total ignorance about the emerging church… Tony has his view… I have mine… and someone else may have a different one that all of us. Yet, there is respect and unity in that we all share faith in the Living Jesus who saves us.
Does Paul ever state that we are to believe in “original sin” and be saved? No, Paul states all men are sinners… and that one must come to Jesus to be saved.
The divisiveness is when someone as in the case of what you just did above is draw a line in the sand against people like. I may not see “original sin” the same as you or Tony… yet, to state “The ones who teach false doctrine are the ones who are being divisive.” seems to miss that possibly someone like a Calvinist may be teaching false doctrine and so falls right in your statement… IOW, it comes down to believing just like YOU and that would mean disregarding the Scripture as I would doubt you are perfect in all doctrine.
The divisiveness are YOUR words as you wrote and show your feelings to others in the body of Christ… in fact, we have to thank people like you for casting us out and seeking those we see as “authentic” and not playing some sick religious game. I hope that is not you… really…
The emerging church is a vast conversation on many topics… to me it was never a movement. It is more the exchange of thoughts and ideas that have been held in the ivory towers of acidemia and now brought out to the common man… in fact if you could wrap your mind around this a bit… it is like when the Gutenberg’s press brought the bible out of hte priests hands and into the common peoples hands…
So to me, those against the emerging church are like the RCC at the time of the Reformation… they hate new ideas, or the exchange of new ideas and prefer to let theologians only talk of the higher things and let the pastors of local churches regurgitate so their congregations need not chew on it… and God forbid their congregation think, talk and try to understand why they believe what they are taught… let alone question it at all.
iggy
Bo,
I could happily demonstrate from Scripture why men are sinful creatures and not just sinners by action alone. I would hope, however, that you are able to do the same.
I’m glad the matter is settled for you that Piper is orthodox and Jones an emerger.
Further, I openly declared that the abortion issue was an example. Further, I made it pretty clear that it has only been debated for decades, not centuries.
But thanks for trying to discredit me without addressing who the real divisive ones are. They are not the ones pleading for purity of doctrine!
Didn’t mean to use that much bold…
Ridiculous analogy, IMO…
To compare something like original sin, which is an idea that has sort of ebbed and flowed through Christian history to abortion, something which is a moral issue, is just wrong.
You might as well just come out and say that you think everyone who disagrees with you is a heretic.
Rick, of course not.
Original sin is not one of the fundamental doctrines.
Phil,
I was simply giving an example that the presence of a debate does not necessarily indicate that the matter is not vitally important.
Dave,
In addition to your tenuous grasp on the history of theology, you also have a tenuous grasp of understanding anyone who isn’t exactly like you. Until you demonstrate the ability to understand what is communicated by others I see no reason to continue attempting to communicate with you.
Good luck with that sola scriptura thing, you might start by not using theological terms that aren’t found in scripture.
I wouldn’t classify one’s view on original sin as “vitally important”…
There are relatively few things I would use that terminology for. Mainly, who was/is Jesus, did He rise from the dead, and can you know Him today? The other stuff is unimportant compared to that.
Chesterton believed in original sin, and that infant baptism eradicated that sin. Do you believe that, and if not, is it heresy? And if so, why is Chesterton, an heretic, quoted on a blog on which you participate?
This heresy/unity thing gets real dicey, doesn’t it…
Dave,
What if we are? And that you have missed that the purity of doctrine comes from loving God and loving others… and when one does that, other doctrines flow.
One main issue we see as emerging is the overall deadness of the church… you call for revival… we say put action to your faith…
Yet, we are the heretics when we question and poke and think and discuss doctrines? We seek doctrines that further the Kingdom… many affirm “original sin” and many never gave it much thought or never did agree…
Again, to cast such a huge overgeneralizing on everyone shows how little you know… I guess it is easier to cast lies and slander against your enemy than love them… Oh that is a doctrine that seems to be totally overlooked by many in your “side” as you say it…
So yes… there is a division.. those of us who choose to love God and others and those who choose to love their doctrine and then maybe fit God into it and if they then are able… love those that are like themselves.
I see that as the line… and according to scripture you may be on the wrong side… that is if you hold to the purity of scripture as you state.
Now don’t take my boldness in speech as unloving… it is a scream that YOU return to the purity of Scripture… And come back to your first love, Jesus Christ.
iggy
Rick,
Can you document the Chesterton stuff for me? I do believe that infant baptism as described above is heresy. I’d just like to see it in Chesterton’s words.
BTW, which blog were you referencing?
I think one of the issues here is taking quotes from two men that are admitting the same thing. The Bible is a “scary book.” Obviously both Piper and Jones disagree on many things. I don’t think we can take these statements and say this is creating unity in Christianity. All they do is agree the Bible is scary. This is not some radical, awesome, unifying movement starting here.
I agree with Dave. The people teaching false doctrine are the divisive ones. Truth is sometimes abrasive, but it is unifying. Truth comes from Scripture. False doctrine divides. It questions truth. It questions Scripture. The Emergents are too focused on pleasing the Post-Moderns and their truth relativity instead of taking a stand on truth and what Scripture teaches.
Iggy,
You put the “false” in false dichotomy.
Dave,
I believe that Rick was referring to this article from a blog that feeds into CR?N (though I could be wrong).
I do have to agree with much of Rick/Phil/Iggy/Bo’s assessment, though, that you do seem to be adding quite a bit to what “heresy”/”apostasy” actually is, by including doctrines/systems that aren’t even named in Scripture…
Chesterton was a Roman Catholic which endorses the absolution of original sin through infant baptism. Do you not contribute to CRN? And is your pastor answerable to Ingrid Schlueter?
Why don’t you consider women usurping authority over male pastors as heresy?
Rick,
To your questions: No and No.
I do consider it false practice within a local church setting.
Then if oversight is Biblical within a “local church “setting”", then why is it acceptable for any of us to take oversight over local church pastors outside of their particular local church setting? I do not speak of addressing doctrinal issues, I am referring to rebuking, reproving, excoriating, demeaning, apostatizing, and calling for the resignation of a local pastor from a locality that some bloggers do not even live.
You know exactly what I mean, and to add to the unrestrained festivities, women are aloowed to rebuke ordained men under the guise of a “non local church setting”. So Biblical truths are only applicable in each local church but lose their absolutes when dragged into the blogashphere.
Who believes in the authority of Scripture now?
Dave – you have in the past linked to Slice which is administrated by an unordained woman who consistently demeans ordained men personally and calls for their resignation. Although you are not the most flagrant in this, but endorsing Ingrid as a dcotrinal oversight to local pastors is Biblically unsound and doctrinally duplicitous.
That was easy!
Is it just me, or do the reading comprehension skills around here, er um, leave a bit to be desired?
The poster (whoever he is) writes a post about a general concept, and invariably, one or more commenters go off on specifics — usually specifics in which he (and maybe even the poster, too) disagree with one of the commenter’s enemies, who was referenced in the post.
Sola Scripturasound mind, my ass.Wooo. Fresh meat. Yum.
Actually, I meant:
spirit of a sound mind, my ass.
Rick,
First of all, we disagree that she is overseeing men. I believe those passages to address a local church situation. If she was trumping her pastor, then it would be an issue of disobedience. She is not under the authority of the “ministries” or the “pastors” that she criticizes. But this post isn’t even about that…
Second, I thought you guys hated guilt by association? Have you ever quoted from or linked to a source with whom have some disagreement?
Thought so…
Dave,
First off, where? I addressed your false dichotomy in that those that do not agree with your view are not not believers in the “Truth of Scripture”. Talk about a false dichotomy!
How, by addressing your ignorance in stating that everyone in emerging thought thinks alike? No, you did with you first question and now instead of talking about it, place it on me… and you say I am divisive? I am seeking to understand and to explain…
A false dichotomy is a “false dilemma… I presented facts to counter you false assumption anyone that does not agree with you is not a believer in “Spiritual Truth”… So really face your own then face the facts I have stated.
iggy
Solomon’s Wheel of Fortune . Applicable to either side of the issue. Only applicable to the “other” one. (One Spin Each – No re-dos).
Proverbs 26:5 – Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.
Bonus spin:
So she is only Biblically restrained from rebuking her own pastor? That is my point. I consider the reluctance to address the unbiblical nature of Ingrid’s behavior as doctrinal cowardice. Plain and simple.
Twisting Scripture is not limited to an emergent environment. Let us all be clear, the Bible is only true in a local church setting.
Sola Local Church Setting Scriptura
Proverbs 32:3 – Like pungent bubbles rising from steamy whirlpool waters the glutton says “hey, dude it wasn’t me”.
OK. I made that one up.
Hey guy, can we start and conduct one debate with kindness, patience and gentleness?
I’ll start. RA I’m sorry I got so sarcastic.
I don’t want to contribute to the problem of getting sidetracked in a post by doing this, I know this post is not about ‘original sin.’ Nevertheless, I feel compelled to point out that ‘original sin’ is not in Scripture, but ‘original grace’ might be. Consider from here:
I think a stronger case can be made for ‘original grace’ than ‘original sin.’ Besides, why on earth to I need to be charged with Adam’s sin? Have I not enough of my own?
Now back to your regularly scheduled post.
jerry
John H,
Thanks John.
I know I personally can come across as angry or bitter or whatever… most the time I do not.
I come from a very different background than some I guess as I was a biker for a while and hung out with some very strong individuals… we spoke things how we saw them and did not appreciate the bull that some people use. So, sometimes I speak boldly… maybe too boldly.
Saying that though I do try to also state that I am not angry, maybe frustrated… but not angry… and I also hope in the end that there is reconciliation…
But really, I confess I have a lot of trouble with some who dress up their verbiage with a bunch of BS and then accuse others of all the things they do themselves.
BTW, God dealt with me about my anger a few years back… though I may still fail at times, what happened at that time shook me to my core so anger is not a “real” issue with me.
So to a degree I am sorry for being so bold in my speech… and hope that I can convey more kindness and gentleness.
To the other degree, God uses my boldness in some powerful ways… and I seem to be able to talk to some in a way that they listen and respond to God.
iggy
As an “emergent” Lutheran let me jump in the discussion
. I always cringe when I hear statements like
The Emergents are too focused on pleasing the Post-Moderns and their truth relativity instead of taking a stand on truth and what Scripture teaches.
I’m from Germany and my church background is Lutheran, and my doctrinal understanding of salvation has always been centered around Luther’s revelation that the righteous live by faith alone and that it is God’s grace that grants us this faith and salvation and the more I ponder upon this essence of the Gospel, the more vital it becomes to my understanding of it. I live by the knowledge and the promise, that I do not merely have faith in God, but that my faith is (as in “resides in”) God.
But there are many questions I bring and have brought to the table, especially when it comes to doctrine that is not supported by a singular prooftext but appears as an interpolation of biblical statements. How do I have to understand the trinity? What do I make out of the fact, that Christ’s work at the cross grants us salvation by grace, while Christ’s preaching predict us judgment according to our works? Is the Bible in its entirety as well as in its singularity God’s word or is God’s word speaking to us through the Bible?
I have grown up in a Christian setting and have experienced various denominations, my Lutheran “home” church, my Mennonite “guest” church I attended during a 10 months stay in the USA, the Jesus-Freaks movement in Germany I sympathized with during my “wild” teenage years, the local SMD (that’s the German Intervarsity student group) at my college town as well as the Campus Crusade for Christ group, free evangelical churches (that’s what they’re called in Germany)… In all these churches and gatherings I learned to value the diversity and the unity of Christian faith.
When I read Brian McLaren’s “A New Kind…” a few years ago I had to realize, that even though I had let myself be influenced by many different movements I often had taken certain doctrinal statements for granted and had often times not allowed myself to follow questions I had. I didn’t even know that there would be a movement in the church that called itself emergent and merely chuckled about the whole postmodernism debate.
I came to realize though, that I had accepted a lot of doctrinal statements not because the Bible told me so, but because some preacher told me, that the Bible says so and it made sense to me (I could write books about the disastrous impact the Left Behind series had on my theology).
What followed was a period of what I would call deconstruction. I had to rethink certain issues or even temporarily abandon certain beliefs, not for the purpose of watering down rock solid biblical truth but for the purpose of getting to what the Bible really says.
For me, this is what emergent is about. It’s not about lighting candles and denying the deity of Christ after an intense session of lectio divina (as Mr. Silva would like us to believe) but it’s about being allowed to ask uncomfortable questions about truth and also being allowed to come to incomplete conclusions. When I read Slice, Apprising and A Little Leaven I always wonder whether its allowed to have a lacking systematic theology after becoming a Christian or if Silva & Co expect everything born-again Christian to be readily equipped with mental notes of John MacArthur’s Study Bible by the Holy Ghost.
In all of this is the Holy Spirit that guides our process of understanding and God’s grace that let’s us reside in his truth.
This is where I experience unity in faith with other Christians. Not in certainty that we are on par on every doctrinal issue but in certainty that we are (as a leader in the SMD always liked to put it) on the same way (for He is the way) but we might still be coming from a different angle.
That’s how I understand emergent.
oops… “most the time I do not” should be “am not”.
OK, I forgive everyone else.
Rick,
1. Pastor A decides to have an explicit, sex-help Sunday morning sermon.
2. Pastor A decides to video this sermon and post it on the internet for the whole world to see.
3. Woman A sees the video online where it was posted for the whole world to see and insists that this should not be done in the name of the Lord.
And you believe her to have violated 1 Timothy 2?
Rick, believe it or not, the commands in the Scriptures are to some degree contextual.
I’m out on that aspect of this discussion because I think it’s rediculous…
Dave:
There are a bunch of examples where Ingrid Schlueter has overstepped the not so thin line between calling a pastor/church official/hobby blogger out for missing the doctrinal mark or measure for socially acceptable sermons. Do a quick search for “Richard Cizik” on Slice and you will find that Frau Schlueter took part in public deconstruction of Mr. Ciziks reputation in a manner that bordered on libel (or even crossed that line). That is a violation of way more than just 1 Timothy 2.
Yes.
That is an antiseptic representation of what this woman does. Does she rebuke that pastor personally? Does she call him a clown? An apostate? Unregenerate? A goat herder?
And it is not confined to explicit sex videos, it is expansive and without any male oversight. This is why some ODMs have no legs to stand on since they pick and choose which unbiblical behavior they will address. I do not read Rob Bell’s wife attacking and name calling other pastors publicly, perhaps she believes the Biblical role of a wife.
Unscriptural behavior is ridiculous? Any discussion about Biblical issues that is inconvenient and includes the inventory of someone you like is ridiculous. I get it.
I thought this post was about Piper and Jones and how they are uniting Christianity with their agreement the Bible is a scary book.
When I read the post and realized this is being heralded as the unification of Christianity I laughed.
I believe original sin is in the Bible (Romans 3). It may not be a doctrine of itself, but without belief in original sin it becomes near impossible to convince someone of their need for a Savior. If a man could possibly do good then he can make an attempt to justify himself. Romans 3 says there is “none that do good, not even one” (Romans 3:12b ESV). So original sin may not be a doctrine of itself but it is very important and in Scripture.
“but without belief in original sin it becomes near impossible to convince someone of their need for a Savior.?
Huh?? Most people who don’t believe in original sin believe that people commit their own original sin, personally. They don’t deny sin, they just make everyone accountable to their own.
I agree Rick,
Why does one have to believe that Adam and Eve sinned? I thought each died for their own sins and not Adams…
Adam may have been first and so cursed all humanity, but each man dies for his own sin.
All men sin… no one is right(eous)… to paraphrase Paul.
So regardless to if one acknowledges Adam and that sin is somehow genetically passed on to others… really does not matter. In fact I see that doctrine makes more questions and opens more theological worms….
Then are women not sinful? So the humanity Jesus recieved through Mary that was tainted by original sin somehow missed? (Don’t worry I know the counterargument and it really holds no water if one looks at the Bible and what it states)
The fact is Jesus was the ONLY one without sin… born of Heaven… we are all sinful and in need of Jesus.
iggy
Okay, this is really off the wall. But when people talk about “Penal Substitutionary Atonement” does anyone else hear Angela Lansbury singing “Substitutionary Locomotion” from Bedknobs and Broomsticks? And if you don’t know who Angela Lansbury is or have never seen Bedknobs and Broomsticks…well, ummm, I guess I am giving away my age.
Re-read and try again.
Is it just me or does it seem somewhat unseemly to argue over the meaning of the cross when all espouse the forgiveness of sins?
THE CROSS
* It is penal
* It is substitutionary
* It is redemption
* It is salvation
* It is forgiveness
* It is sacrifice
* It is Passover
* It is love
* It is grace
* It is mercy
* It is eternal
* It is ransom
* It is deliverance
* It is emancipation
* It is liberation
* It is rescue
* It is life
* It is infinite
* It is the divine gift
* It is the divine expression
* It is the example
* It is our model
* It is our God
* It is our Savior
* It is finished
* It is the door
* It is the way
* It is the offering
* It is the paradox
And one day in God’s throne room we will see Him as He is, complete with the wounded history on His hands, and on that “day” we will realize that we have never even touched the hem of His garment as it pertains to that cross. And yet we argue as if the cross was our personal possession.
Let us preach it as the eternal weapon of love, not a doctrinal subject that needs defending. To preach it and live it is all the glorious defense that is asked of us, and in that we are challenged beyond our earthly ability. Jesus Himself would not be consumed with defending Himself and being distracted from that cross, and so should we follow in His steps.
What a piece of work is a man. Indeed.
Rick,
The cross is all of those things and more.
And the grave is empty!
Hallelujah!
I love this posted on Slice.
But it beggars this question: Why is it wrong to use lighting and object lessons and theatrics in the seeker churches, but the Calvinists can use parchment picture frames and background music and attractive fonts to enhance Paul Walker’s sermon?
I love Arminian Calvinists!!
I invite everyone to read “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty” on the “Powered by Christ Ministries” site. CAUTION: You may have nightmares after reading it. Bruce