Tony Jones on Al Mohler's Radio Show

Tony Jones, the national coordinator of Emergent Village was on Al Mohler's daily radio show this weekend. Al Mohler wasn't the host, but had a guest host. You can listen to it here if you're at all interested in the emerging church.

My take:

First off, I think it was great of Al Mohler to invite Tony to be on his show. Many people who are critical of the emergent movement wouldn't sit down to have that conversation. I listened to one of Jerry Falwell's final messages before his death titled "What's Wrong With the Emergent Church" in which he kept claiming to be friends with leaders of the movement, and to have studied it extensively, but no one seems to know whom he was referring to, and it was obvious he didn't put forth any effort to understand the movement.

So kudos for having Tony on your show, but it wasn't a great dialog. The host gave an introduction about how the emerging church is a scattered organization that has no core beliefs. He then brings on Tony Jones, asks him some questions and replies to his answers with rote phrases about truth and the Bible. It's his radio show, his prerogative I guess.

When questioned on truth, Tony points out the political, very human, way through which many of our critical doctrines were reached. (For example, in the Council of Chalcedon, A.D. 451, a vote was taken only after the bishops which did not agree were excommunicated.) The host points out that the Holy Spirit guided the process, and I won't disagree with that. But if something like what happened at the Council of Chalcedon happened today, would we take the result as firm doctrine, or would we question the process in which it was decided. Did the Holy Spirit work in a more direct way thousands of years ago? Was there something magical about the year 451 that makes church decisions unquestionable?

The host asks where the doctrinal boundaries are, since the emergent movement neglects to adopt a creed or confession. Tony points out changing doctrines, such as the Souther Baptists' denial of interracial marriages not so long ago. He uses this to point out that doctrine and belief are ongoing dialogs. The host points out that what actually happened was that the Southern Baptists realized they were liars and repented to reinterpret it (of course he would never admit that this is possible for beliefs held by Baptists today). I think Tony's point was made well.

They move on to inerrancy. Tony points out that the debate in the 20th century was a valid one at the time, "driven by a non-biblical question about whether the Bible was empirically trustworthy." He points out that the bible transcends that kind of truth in that it is so much more than scientifically true and that scripture doesn't need to be put to the test of science. Instead of engaging Tony in dialog about this, the host takes control of his show as the music signals a commercial break and says "I don't think that's the word of God, Tony. I think that's confusion." <> (I hate when the phrase "word of god" is used that way...almost like its a trump card or something.)

On returning from commercial, the host claims that inerrancy is not a past debate but is essential to believing in Jesus. Then, he changes the subject so that Tony will not respond. Tony goes back to respond that if inerrancy is so essential to salvation, then why did no one talk about it until the middle of the 20th century. "That's just not true" the host breaks in, yet offers no evidence as to why it is not true.

Again, Tony makes a well-spoken thoughtful statement, and the host doesn't respond. We move onto a question from the audience which I won't bother to discuss.

The show ends with a monologue from the host about the nature of truth and the danger of questioning truth. His closing quotes: "I don't think that truth is a what, but that truth is a who." (I think I would agree, but it seems that it is conservative Christians who cling to truth as something that can be laid out in bullet points) And so as not to leave his listeners confused on the nature of the emergent church, he says that "The stakes are high. It is not an old debate, it has been going on since the garden of Eden."

Maybe I am a part of "the far fringe, bringing a liberalizing agenda to Christianity" that this host speaks of, but I would much rather see the two sides get together to discuss these issues in a more thorough way.