Tony Jones and Steve Brown on the Radio

Posted by Chris Case | May 7, 2008 .

Having started seminary at a very liberal school, then ending up at RTS and having Steve Brown as a professor, I definitely connect with his perspective. In my experience, I’ve had a hard time connecting with a lot of PCA folks… while I appreciate the systematics, the practical theology just doesn’t play itself out in a way that makes sense in the world I live in. Why do you think I’ve got this blog? Systematically, I’m reformed, but in practical theology, the emerging church makes sense to me. At times, I feel like that’s just where Steve Brown is. Having himself attended a liberal seminary, he eventually came to identify with evangelical, reformed theology, although he came kicking and screaming, like he says in this audio below.

Steve has a radio show, in which he recently invited Tony Jones to be a guest. Now, I like Tony and think he has some really interesting and important things to say, and no way would I ever demonize him, although other reformed folks seem to have made that their task. But, along the lines of Steve Brown, I do have my own set of concerns, particularly in relation to epistology. Here’s the whole radio show/podcast:

I did appreciate the friendliness that existed between the two throughout the conversation, in a way two theologians reflected a Christ-like attitude in discussion. Now, on Tony’s point about developing doctrine in context, I definitely understand that role for the emerging church. He states that Augustine developed doctrine in the context and language of his time, and that the emerging church is doing in the same in this time of pluralism, globalization, and post-modernism. I think a bit of the fallacy there is the lack of acknowledgment that young reformed folks are doing the same thing, but coming to the conclusions that the old guys might have hit on a few things that still apply today.

I had a hard time with his statement that liberalism and conservativism are only contemporary terms. I had a class with Shirley Guthrie at my first seminary, and it was a major tenet of his that liberal and conservative branches of Christianity have always existed, and tend to be like a pendulum in terms of their momentum, swinging back and forth between the two groups. Starting with Marcion, and his doubts about authority of scripture, through the Waldensians and guys like St Francis of Assissi, there have always been liberal strains of Christianity in comparison to more orthodox conservative branches. Now modern liberalism is certainly a product of the enlightenment, led by Schleiermacher, followed by folks like Bultmann and Tillich, but just because our terms for liberalism and conservativism is fairly contemporary, both waves have always existed.

Now, I once talked about Christian doctrine being like an open box, where you are surrounded on four sides by the stead and supportive wall, but to allow for doctrine to have an accessibility to it that is not closed off as completely and total absolute. Scripture is truth, our doctrinal systems are like Paul’s statement about seeing dimly through a mirror… they reflect truth, but in a incomplete way. That being said, I do have trouble with Tony’s model of comparing church to liberal democracy. Steve Brown points out that, “There are eternal verities, that if we get everbody off the street and have input and come out with a position paper, that you can call that Christian. There is a sense that there are verities that are revealed and not voted on, but are taught.” Its one thing to say that you can be wrong, and I am open to that completely. No one has a grasp on 100% truth, and I would hope most theologians would approach theological stances with the humility of possibly being wrong, but that is not to throw out the ability of discerning things that are untrue. That’s where I think Tony and Steve have their issues, because eventually you have to be able to point out something that scripture is clear on and say, “That is untrue… there’s really no debate on it.” While we can have discussions about homosexuality or feminism or a handful of other culturally significant issues that we may disagree on, there are truths in the Bible such as God’s love, Christ’s divinity, etc, that should be non-negotiables for us.

I appreciate Tony and his interest in creating churches where people are welcomed to have different opinions. It should be the safest place to ask questions and seek truth, no matter how liberal or conservative you may be. But, at the end of the day, there is some truth to be grasped, and there is a Bible to turn to for it, and if God wants us to have this book identified as breathed by Him, then he may want us to come to some conclusion about truth.

Share this