Friday, October 06, 2006

Tony Jones is a writer, I am not

Tony Jones is a friend of mine and clearly articulates some points I have either attempted to make on this blog or make in a less clear manner on a regular basis.

However, Tony Jones is also a writer and I am not (but we all know that), so he should be articulating these points in a coherent manner, while the jury is still out on my coherence in general, let alone the coherence of my writing.

Anyway, if you don't read Tony's blog and you read mine (which would be a strange occurrence and means you are probably a very close friend), please take note of 2 recent posts.

1. Tony's recounting of his lunch with Piper. When he told me about it a few weeks ago, I was flabbergasted by the idea that one has to believe soley in the Substituionary atonement Theory to be a "Christian." Even R.C. Sproul never said that. He said it was the only truth, but one did not have to believe in this truth to be saved. While I disagree with Sproul's assessment that it is the sole truth, I like the generosity of his statement.

I have wanted to blog on such things lately, but chose not to because I did want to act like I had some sort of inside info on such a meeting (lots of people knew), so I am glad Tony tells us what happened and gives a clearly orthodox (and historically respectful) understanding of the atonement (he also names my favorite book on the atonement). Read Here

2. Tony belongs to the same sub-grouping I do politically speaking. We are both Radically Independent Moderates. We both appreciate the free market and the government's need to limit its potential evils (all human systems are subject to this). Neither of us are single issue voters and both have voted for plenty of Republicans and Democrats, along with a few Independents (of course, he may have never voted Green with me). We also agree on the idea that the only theologically justifiable position for Christians is that of Independence (we sound like Fundies). So, read his diatribe naming the political candidates he will be voting for. It is enjoyable.

It is good for others to understand that just because you oppose a President and his policies and that President happens to be Republican, this does not mean you are a Radical Liberal (although I would be happy to call myself one if I had the guts to be one). It is good to remind others that one can be against abortion and poverty, against war and the sexualization of culture, pro-capitalism and pro-environment, anti-greedy corporations and anti-government largeness. It is never as simple as those that like to label each other try to make it.

1 comment:

Mike said...

huh. i read your blog and not his, i guess that makes us close friends. cool

i really liked how he was very generous and gracious about the entire thing. i think in the whole conflict between the reformed and the emergent there is way more heat than light, and many on both sides haven't taken the time to actually study deeply what the other side believes or if they have they have done so with their minds already made up.

i find that very discouraging as one who finds himself in both camps, theologically reformed and because of that reformed/covenant theology i tend to ask the same questions and level the same criticisms as those in the emergent movement. it all makes me feel very homeless.

and i think you are very articulate btw.