Tony Jones, in a short video, defends blessing and legalizing homosexual and lesbian "monogamous" relationships. He stares into the camera and opines idiocy with great smugness, packing fallacies and absurdities tighter than sardines in a can run over by a steam roller. The claims is that there is no slippery slope. If we allow these "unions" it will not lead to inter species unions or to polygamy. It's all OK in a democracy. Tony said so.
1. Set aside any slippery slope concern. These unions themselves are unnatural, wrong, and ungodly in themselves--whatever they lead to. The biblical norm is heterosexual monogamy (Genesis 2; Matthew 19:1-2). Anything else issues from the the results of the fall, not creation. Anything else is not blessed by God but rather erupts from the sinful hearts of human beings bent on creating their own sexuality (Mark 7:21-23). It is sinful autonomy writ large and ugly. We should love, not hate, people in this situation; but to deny their sin does not help them, nor does it honor God, who will bring everything into account one Day.
2. "Monogamy" refers to "one spouse." Spouses are of the opposite sex of their spouse. Using "monogamous," as Jones does, for same sex unions is a semantic absurdity. To invoke Schaeffer, it is "semantic mysticism"--one uses a soft, friendly term to defend a hard falsity.
3. Slippery slopes do exist. Legalizing abortion on demand led to an overall cheapening of unborn life in America. The argument was that abortion would only occur in "hard cases"--threats to the mother's life, extreme fetal deformity, etc. Now people have abortions for sex selection and to murder Down's babies--80-90% of which are now killed before birth. The slope is real, Mr. Jones. To say otherwise to be be a flagrant (if popular) ignoramus. Legal scholars are already arguing for the legal legitimation of polygamy, since same sex unions are considered marriages in some (debauched) states.
We are seeing the degression of Romans 1:18-32 played out in our culture and in our churches. The truth of God is supressed and idols made from human imagination--idols of "liberation" through perverse associations--put on the throne.
May God have mercy on us and lead Tony Jones to repentence. He should read James 3:1 and tremble before the Word of God, which is living and active (Hebrews 4:12).
Well said! We are living in a Romans 1 world 24x7.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I left at the BeliefNet site:
"It isn't just a slippery slope argument (which are sometimes fallacies and sometimes not), it is a "cliff" argument. Once you state that marriage is not just between a man and a woman then you open it up to whatever you want it to be.
And if you have legal recognition of same sex marriage then there are logical consequences, such as pitting the real church (not Tony's fake one) vs. the government. After all, the real churches will be preaching against the "civil right" of sexual preferences.
Also, you'll poison the minds of kids as young as 5 with the teaching in public schools of how "normal" gay, lesbian, transgender, bi-sexual and who knows what else.
Tony and pro-gay theologians oppose Leviticus 18:22 but would be shocked -- shocked, I say -- if anyone suggested that 18:23 was wrong.
Leviticus 18:22-23 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion.
But what if the situation were reversed? Since Tony et al are editing the Bible, who are they to say we can't discard other passages we don't like? Why is he so bigoted, hateful, judgmental and intolerant towards those who want to have sex with animals?"
Thanks for this. We need such dismantling of unbiblical and illogical reasoning.
ReplyDeleteMichael C Thompson
Who is Tony Jones?
ReplyDeleteHe is an emerging church bloviator.
ReplyDeleteI'd say he's even more than a "bloviator", Doug; he has written books, for a time held an official "emergent leadership" position, etc. I "bloviate" on my blog (and have for 6 years or so), but I'm nobody; Tony Jones is a well-respected (well, in certain emergent circles) "leader" in the movement. His latest isn't surprising; he has, as I'm sure you know, been off the deep end for some time now, and his "reasoning" has never been particularly cogent. Though I blanch when people want to tar and feather all "emergents" with one brush, it's certainly true that whomever is simpatico with Mr. Jones and his definitions of "new Christian" JUST AREN'T ON THE SAME TEAM I AM. Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteHe is a well-published bloviator, then.
ReplyDeleteIs it alright if I quote you on my facebook with this video?
ReplyDeleteWant to get the word out about this guy. Not that many people look at my facebook posts. I'm not much of a facebook person to be honest, but it has helped "mark those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom. 16:17.
donsands:
ReplyDeleteGo ahead. Thanks for asking.
DG
Wow, Doug, I really think highly of you and your work. And I think that name-calling is beneath you.
ReplyDeleteYou may not agree with me, and you may think my reasoning is lacking, but I've come to my decisions honestly and rigorously.
You know, there are a lot of smart people -- Christians even -- who disagree with you on certain theological points. I would hope that everyone who disagrees with you is not a "bloviator."
No, not everyone who disagrees with me is a bloviator. Why think that? I used the term for your video because it was so superficial, unbiblical, and illogical. You issue profoundly wrong and dangerous statements with no backing. You are leading the sheep astray and need to repent.
ReplyDeleteTony, I can appreciate "honestly and rigorously", but it's hard to see how you've come to your decisions "biblically". Certainly, the subject is a controversial one, but it doesn't seem all that difficult if the Bible is truly our authority. This has concerned me for some time about your thinking, Tony: it doesn't seem very obvious that the Bible is the final authority in your thinking, and I'm not talking about simply this issue.
ReplyDeleteFurther, I don't think your reasoning is particularly cogent--and I don't mean that as an insult--but I read your justification for supporting Obama's presidency, and while I don't want to turn this discussion political in nature (any more than it already is), I just found myself shaking my head, not even so much at your conclusions as at your reasoning.
If the Bible is not inerrant (don't get hung up on that word; I mean "without error in the original manuscripts"), sufficient, and authoritative, then we're spinning our wheels at best, and deceiving people at worst, and thus I say that if the Word isn't those things to you, or anybody else, we're not on the same team--the issue is that serious.
Harvey
ReplyDeleteAs one who has been trained as a biblical scholar I am curious, can you present an original text. This bantering of inerrant in the original text is possibly the most immature language available. It show little to know understanding of the development of the canon as a whole.
Who's original text- you all act as if there is a single text that exist out there with little or no knowledge as to how the text came into existence. Was the text Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Arabic or are you talking about King Jimmy.
While, I am not sure I agree with Tony on many issues your claim to textual authority based on some from of original invalidates your entire argument. If you disagree with someone don't grab something that doesn't exist, that we don't have in our hands or have no evidence of to prove your point.
Michael, I'll ignore the needless, gratuitous insults and attempt to answer the question you raise. You are in about equal measure correct as to your facts and irrelevant in your assessment, for while you are completely true in your assertion that we do not have the original manuscripts, that fact is also utterly irrelevant. Surely you know that I understand that there is no extant original; it doesn't take half a brain to know that. At the same time, the issue with the inerrancy of Scripture doesn't involve either a particular translation of Scripture (the "King Jimmy", as you say, which is certainly not my preferred translation) nor with any of the extant manuscripts. Rather, the issue of inerrancy answers for us the nature of the Bible itself: is it God's Word to man, or is it man's ideas about God? Is Scripture (the original texts, preserved-though-not-100%-perfectly through the years) theopneustos, "God-breathed" (and thus the task of the Biblical scholar is to attempt to discern, with the best tools we have, exactly what those original texts must have said), or is it not God-breathed, in which case we must conclude that it has error (being a purely man-made thing), in which case our task is, what, to take Jesus Seminar-like stabs in the dark as to what, if any, of Scripture is worth believing/acting upon.
ReplyDeleteI further grant that a commitment to inerrancy is not, can never be (minus those original manuscripts) a 100% evidential one. That said, we look at some of Scripture's claims about itself; we listen to some of the words of Jesus (Who, it seems clear, had no issue at all with the truthfulness of the Old Testament text); we look at the manuscripts we do have; we think logically and consistently through implications of possible positions; we err on the side of faith (in those rare, rare instances in which we find potential contradictions in Scripture, etc.), faith that if we had perfect knowledge, there would be no inconsistencies in Scripture, etc.
Francis Schaeffer rightly called the doctrine of inerrancy the "watershed": come down on one side of the watershed, and you end up in a completely different location from the person who begins inches away from you on the other side of the watershed. History has proven this to be true time and again; the apostasy/decay of mainline denomination after mainline denomination can be traced to the jettisoning of a belief in inerrancy, and Tony Jones (and any other of his emergent ilk) is on a fool's errand if he thinks he can jettison this and not end up, ultimately, in downright heresy.