Near Emmaus

Tag Archives: Tony Jones


by 28 Comments

The Massacre of the Innocents: did it happen and does it matter?

The Massacre of the Innocents in Matthew 2:13-18.

The Massacre of the Innocents in Matthew 2:13-18.

James McGrath and Tony Jones have engaged in a blog discussion over the historicity of the “Massacre of the Innocents” as described in Matthew 2:13-18. For some, this may be unattractive because it seems like these sort of topics are discussed ad nauseum, especially around Christmas and Easter, but I think this particular debate is interesting and it may be worth your time to read. Why? McGrath and Jones are discussing the historicity of the narrative because of the contemporary events that occurred last Friday in Newtown, CT. Many have connected the story of the Massacre of the Innocents to the killing of twenty children at Sandy Hook Elementary School because the Massacre of the Innocents is a “Christmas story” in the sense that Herod is described as having ordered for all the children near Bethlehem be killed because his conversation with the visiting Magi from the east lead him to think that another “king of the Jews” had been born there, one who would threaten his reign. In the narrative the one born in Bethlehem is Jesus, and though he escapes to Egypt with his parents due to angelic intervention, the other children in the area are killed.

McGrath wrote the provoking post, “Why I’m Glad the Infancy Narrative isn’t Literally True”, in which he expresses concern with a narrative where an angel would warn one family of impending doom, but not the others. This seems to McGrath to be quite unjust. Why couldn’t the angel have told all the families, saving far more children? Since McGrath finds this story improbable historically he expresses relief that in fact Matthew’s insensitive narrative is something we can ignore, for it doesn’t really tell us about how God acts in the midst of tragedy, merely how Matthew mistakingly depicts God as acting.

James McGrath

James McGrath

McGrath has a variety of reasons for denying, or strongly doubting, the historicity of the event: it is ignored in the Gospel of Luke, it is not mentioned in any other sources, it appears to be motivated by the author’s desire to place Jesus in Egypt so that he can be a “new Israel” with a “new Exodus”. Personally, I don’t find these points to be as devastating a critique as McGrath, especially since (1) the actions fit the Herod we know from other sources; (2) I think scholars often invert Matthew’s exegetical approach depicting him as having read Scripture in order to find events to narrate whereas the peculiarity of Matthew’s exegesis leads me to think he had existent traditions through which he read the text connecting events to Scripture. In other words, I think Matthew had a tradition that Herod killed the children while seeking Jesus and this lead him to read Scripture to see if there was any “foretelling” of such an event. This doesn’t mean that Matthew’s information was correct, but I think it does force us to stop and think before denouncing Matthew as someone who created wild mythologies about the life of Jesus while reading the prophets.

While not to deny the quagmires of theodicy, I don’t feel as troubled as McGrath by this text’s depiction of God’s favoritism toward Jesus. McGrath doesn’t seem to give much thought to the theological reasons for why God may have intervened to save Jesus, the particular favor and role of Jesus in the plan of God, and how if God intervened to stop all evil it would be the eschaton! If he did think about these things, he dismissed them, quickly. As hard as this may be to swallow, Jesus’ life was more important than others, theologically, as is his death at the end of the story. If God saves the world through Jesus then we have to rethink the theodicy of this passage. If God does not save the world through Jesus, then we may have reason for demanding that God be egalitarian about who he rescues from death.

Tony Jones has different qualms with McGrath, which he expresses in “James McGrath is Wrong: Herod Really Did Massacre the Innocents”. He sees this as a liberal side-stepping of the problematic parts of Scripture. Jones is thankful that the Bible contains stories like the Massacre of the Innocents because it matches real life. Some people survive, others die, and God’s role in the world is quite messy. For Jones, McGrath’s exegetical move silences the victims. It doesn’t allow the reader to wrestle with the injustice of the world because the reader can say, “Well, thank God that didn’t actually happen!”

Tony Jones

Tony Jones

The strength of Jones’ argument is it does expose what many “liberal” or “progressive” types like to ignore: there is no objectivity. Even when doing historical work we are prone to accept and reject evidence based on presuppositions and motivations. Many historians would like to think that they “just read the text”, but no one does this. The weakness of Jones’ argument is doesn’t address some of the critiques of the event’s historicity presented by McGrath.

In McGrath’s response titled, “Am I Wrong About the Massacre of the Innocents” this is the direction he takes the conversation. Now, McGrath does use a slight of hand: he says Jones is asking a “theological” question while he is asking a “historical” one. Anyone who read McGrath’s first post should be aware that this is a false dichotomy. Both are asking theological and historical questions. Jones failed to give the historical questions enough attention. That is probably a more accurate assessment. McGrath says the following:

“Ironically, because Tony has justifiable concerns that the text not be misused for theological ends, Tony ends up ignoring the crucial historical question, which has to be paramount when we ask what did or did not occur. We do not say that the Holocaust occurred because otherwise it would let God off the hook. We say that it occurred because the evidence is clear and undeniable, and includes people who lived through it. And if we ask whether Israelites invaded Canaan and slaughtered Canaanites, the answer to that question must be based on the historical evidence, not because it either does or does not let God or Israelites off the hook.”

This is a fair criticism and it will be worth watching to see if Jones aims to address the lurking questions that need to be answered if one is going to demand that the Massacre of the Innocents happened in space-time. (FWIW, this is not a debate between a “liberal” and a “conservative”, so Jones won’t appeal to something like the inerrancy, infallibility, or trustworthiness of Scripture. For those who would approach it from this angle the question of why we should affirm the historicity of these events lingers still.)

About these ads


by 5 Comments

George O. Wood Responds to Tony Jones, et al.

I was informed that George O. Wood, the Superintedent of the Assemblies of God, intended to respond to the controversy regarding his critique of Tony Jones being at the annual meeting for the Society for Pentecostal Studies. He addressed the issue live on MinistryDirect.com so I decided I would listen.

I found his response calm and respectful. He appealed to (1) his responsibility as an “overseer” and (2) the Society of Pentecostal Studies association with the World Pentecostal Fellowship (of which he is an executive board member) as reason for him expressing concern. He says he feels that he spoke as many other global Pentecostal leaders would have spoke.

Wood said the AOG did not threaten to boycott SPS but he did say that such a direction could lead to the AOG deciding not the fund their scholars for SPS (though free to go using their own funds). The problem was not the subject being discussed. The problem was giving Jones, an open advocate of same sex marriage, a platform. He felt that the Apostle Paul would not have given a platform like this to someone in the church of Corinth.

I was unaware of the partnership between the Society for Pentecostal Studies and the World Pentecostal Fellowship (WPF). This partnership makes me think Wood had all the right to question SPS’s decision. Apparently, SPS is not an independent academic society. If there is a relationship between SPS and WPF then the SPS, by default, has the primary purpose of serving the church. Likewise, Sanchez-Walsh and others have the right to form another fellowship free from any associations if they think it will allow them more academic freedom.

Wood did say that academic freedom must work with academic responsibility. He said that for Christian scholars this means Scriptural fidelity. Again, if SPS is for the embetterment of the church then the leadership of the church has a right to express their feelings on the matter. Jones has not labored for the health of the Pentecostal movement. He has less invested in it than Wood and others, nor does he care about their spiritual well-being like Wood. I am inclined to side with the AOG superintendent on this one.


by 4 Comments

What Do Emergence and Pentecostalism Have to Learn from One Another?

Tony Jones is scheduled to present a paper at the upcoming meeting of the Society of Pentecostal Studies. In preparation he is asking “So, what does the emerging church have to learn from Pentecostalism, and what does Pentecostalism has to learn from the emerging church?” As one who may be considered Pentecostal (some Pentecostals may reject this statement), as well as one who at one point was very interested in the development of the emerging church, I think I may have a few thoughts on this matter.

Since I think I have more to say to what the emerging church can learn from Pentecostalism I will limit my contribution to that side of the discussion. There are several points I will attempt to make here that I hope may be found helpful.

(1) Do not allow distinctive characteristics to move you toward anti-catholicity. One of the serious problems with the Pentecostal movement is that she has often become so concerned with her distinctive characteristics, like glossolalia and freedom of expression in worship, that it has made her turn a cold shoulder to identifying with other Christians. This is partially to blame on the fact that the early years of the Pentecostal movement were scarred by partial persecution from other Christians. Nevertheless, our response has left us bankrupt of tradition at times as well as antagonistic to a broader Christianity that for the most part would likely be more welcoming to some of our distinctive characteristics or at least to fellowship in spite of those characteristics.

(2) Do maintain essential, important, reforming characteristics. As the old adage goes, “The most segregated time of the week in the United States is Sunday morning.” At Azusa Street this was not so. Christians gathers in the name of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. This was our identity. As Pentecostalism aged she forgot about these humble, cross-cultural beginnings and she slowly made racial reconciliation a non-priority. Sadly, Pentecostalism is as racially divided in many places as the rest of the church.

Equally, we noticed that God uses women and that there is “neither male or female” in Christ. Yet over time we bought into older, decontextualized readings of the Scriptures that limited female involvement. In response, some of our independent churches have pushed too hard for female equality which has led to some women pastors who have no doctrinal backbone at all (much like what is seen in some mainstream churches). We should have been more intentional regarding developing our understanding of women in the church rather than reacting to Protestant, Reformed readings of various passages.

The emerging church has made some moves that Pentecostalism made a century before the emerging church was coming into fruition. It is my hopes that the emerging church, if it is not a fad (which is yet to be seen), will at least contribute to our progress in the areas that Pentecostalism intended to contribute at her beginning.

(3) Do not forsake solid doctrine. This is my greatest fear for the emerging church. She seems to be anti-doctrinal. Everyone has the right, at times, to reconsider his/her beliefs. I don’t necessarily agree with Catholic and Orthodox theologians who argue that the Christian must simply adopt what was handed down because the reality of the matter is that in some cases not everything handed down is true or at least relevant anymore. On the other hand, I don’t think anyone has the right to deconstruct the content of the Apostle’s Creed, the Nicene Creed, or the Constantinopolitan Creed. If the emerging church wants to rethink eschatology or ethics, fine. Let what is essential about Christianity remain free from prodding or the heresy tag be inevitable.

As for Pentecostals please consider Gordon Fee. He is doctrinally sound, faithful to the Scripture, dedicated to exegesis and accurate hermeneutics, yet distinctive as a Pentecostal. Our greatest fault as Pentecostals is that we marginalize our most brilliant, biblically faithful theologians whenever they question the nature of our distinctive characteristics (e.g. speaking in tongues, the nature of the gifts in corporate worship).

It would be wonderful to see someone incorporate some emerging church aspects with biblical exegetical faithfulness. At this point I cannot think of that person. Those like Driscoll and Kimball who would be named (or even Andrew Jones) seem to have move away or are moving away from the emerging church label. This could be bad for the movement. If this happens you become simply another form of liberal Protestantism (which is fine, but all this means is that your movement was incorporated into an already existing form of Christianity, once again spelling out the demise of the ‘emerging church’ as something distinctive).

(4) Do continue to push the social side of the gospel (without resurrecting the ‘social gospel’ movement). Pentecostalism began on the other side of the tracks. We have historically been a movement that cared for the poor. Sadly, it seems that once we matured there are some who became afraid of social action associating it with the ‘social gospel movement’. I find this disappointing.

The gospel is the be holistically embodied which includes word and deed. So I applaud the emerging church for speaking about social issues (although at times I am not sure about the direction many have taken because it seems to be simply an anti-Dobson, anti-Robertson, anti-Falwell approach). I just hope that (a) it doesn’t become solely a social gospel movement or (b) ditches that characteristic.

(5) Listen to your critics because it provides balance. Sometimes I wish Pentecostalism would have ignored her critics (racial integration, women in ministry) but other times I wish there would have been more humble listening (sacraments, maintaining order in worship, the importance of tradition). I hope the emerging church will listen to her critics because there are some important things that need to be heard. If the emerging church is to avoid becoming radical for the sake of being radical or irrelevant for the sake of simply become something that already exist (again, I see it moving toward mainline Protestantism, at least as regards capital “E” Emergent) she need to listen to other Christians. Yes, even John Piper and D.A. Carson care about the church which is why I think they (sometimes rightly) attack the emerging church. If you can at least listen to the critiques you may avoid some of the mistakes that Pentecostalism made over the years.

All that being said I am a “Pentecostal” who attends a Baptist church (Imago Dei here in Portland, which is not an emerging church) as well as a non-denomination, yet characteristically Baptist, seminary. As much as I love the Pentecostal movement some of the very problems that I have alluded to here (as well as others like anti-educationalism) have led me to step away for the time being. So maybe I am disqualified to speak to this subject. Nevertheless, I thought I would toss my few cents into the pond. Maybe someone will find value in what was said.


by Leave a comment

The Emerging Church has Emerged (= Died)

I am not sure what it is about all this “emergent church is dead” talk but I find it somewhat interesting (e.g. here and here). Especially because it is has become so satirically brilliant! Rick Bennett has written an ‘Obituary for the Emerging Church‘ which he followed by declaring the one thing the emergent church may not want to hear: you have emerged! This echoed Andrew Jones’ post of the types of emerging churches that “no longer upset your grandfather“. The thesis of these writers is pretty simple: Listen, emerging church, you have arrived and now you are just another aspect of global Christianity.

Others like Tony Jones (here) have tried to emphasize that the emerging church is as “radical” as ever. But as Andrew Jones told him, “The controversy you are stirring up seems unrelated to the main emphasis of the emerging church movement.” It seems to me that those in the emerging church who want to retain that aspect of being “controversial” aren’t doing anything that Anglican church or the ECLA are doing? As far as worship is concerned Catholics and Orthodox have been using candles and pictures for a long, long time. Even the virtual church movement is more cutting edge and controversial than the emerging church.

So what could kill the emerging church? Well, if it emerged. If it became just another aspect of Christianity. I think it has done just that. So welcome emerging church, you have done a lot to help change Christianity in some areas but it appears you have emerged.

So what’s next?


by 4 Comments

The Emerging Church Isn’t Dead, Yet (Or So Some Say)

After reading my post on the possible demise of the emerging church movement (see here) our most famous biblioblogger, Jim West, gleefully declared her death was not a moment too soon (read here). On the other hand, Drew Tatusko responded by writing that those of us who think the end is near have made such declarations much too soon (read here).

In a similar vein, Tony Jones has responded (read here) to Andrew Jones’ declaration that the end may be near (read here) by basically arguing that it may be as alive as ever. Andrew Jones has promised to respond (see here). So it appears that we are now arguing over the possible demise or rise of the emergent church.

In all reality, there is no way to know if the emergent church era is coming to an end or if she has simply morphed into something else. Of course, if she was “emerging” who was to know where this would lead and it may be that she has become exactly what she was intended to become as a type of renewal movement for some things that the church had been ignoring. Can we know?

Update: Andrew Jones has written on the ten types of emergent churches that “no longer upset your grandfather” here.