Emergent Tony Jones Favors GLBT Marriage
Tony Jones, former director of Emergent Village, recently declared his views on homosexual marriage:
I now believe that GLBTQ [gay/lesbian/bisexual/transsexual/queer] can live lives in accord with biblical Christianity (at least as much as any of us can!) and that their monogamy can and should be sanctioned and blessed by church and state.
I suppose this [discussion] will be a test of whether I have good theological and philosophical reasons for supporting the rights of GLBTQ persons to marry, or whether I’ve simply caved to the mushy inclusivity of pluralized nothingness.
Surprised? Not really.
At least in his second paragraph he acknowledges it for what it is: caving in to mushy inclusivity of pluralized nothingness. I couldn’t have put it better myself.
In other news, emerger Doug Pagitt has announced his interest in a run for Congress. Since he and I apparently have similar political ambitions for supreme and ultimate power, our future theological battles will inevitably take place in the ultimate duel of our opposing presidential campaigns of 2032. To the death, Pagitt. To the death.
Finally, here is a fun little spoof video on these developments in the whole emerging scene.
Hat tip to the Daily Scroll, for pointing out these articles, and also for featuring many of my articles on their site, as well!
My name is Aaron Rathburn. I am a senior in philosophy at Calvin College, and formerly studied at Trinity School of Theology (Wales, UK). I am a husband, and father of two. This site is a collection of musings on theology, culture, and more. 
There are always some Christians somewhere arguing that something we consider sin is actually okay. For example, there are some Christians who support war in the Middle East and even some who side with Israel in the Palestinian conflict. Surprised? Not really.
David, I think the significance of the above statement is that there has been a lot of ambiguity from the ‘leaders’ of the Emergent conversation regarding there possession on homosexuality etc. It has been a matter of debate, because no one has come out and actually stated their position.
In this sense, I actually find Tony’s clarification quite helpful because it makes it easier to critique the movement when all the cards are on the table. (This is, of course, so long as the source of the above statement is reliable, and not a distortion by hyper-conservatives who are trying to end the conversation rather than actually act like adults and debate the issue (sorry for the awful cynicism of that statement).
Yes, critique is very important but it is not always easy to sift these things. The danger is we can become heresy hunters. For instance, I am glad I stayed with the group that I did even though it went through times when it aligned itself with some dodgy ideas of prosperity, territorial spirits, etc.
Yeah, as Simon pointed out, this isn’t just any random Christian, but rather the subject of intense debate in the evangelical community at the moment. The emerging church is coming under very tight scrutiny (is the movement good? bad? ugly?). But one problem to evaluating the movement (which is what Simon meant by “critique,” I suspect), is that some leaders (such as Jones) have been very ambiguous on many of these hot-button issues that weigh so heavily in the evaluation (critique).
A lot of conservative evangelicals have suspected a stream of liberalism within the Emergent camp, but it has been intensely debated for this very reason: they haven’t given their views one way or the other!
“…so long as the source of the above statement is reliable, and not a distortion by hyper-conservatives…”
If you click through the link at the top, you can read the very very long context in which Tony’s comment was made. I skimmed it, but the excerpt pasted above seemed extremely clear-cut and what he intended to mean, rather than distorted. Matter of fact, Jones went so far as to BOLD the sentence, to make his point. Ouch!
“…there are some Christians who support war in the Middle East and even some who side with Israel in the Palestinian conflict.’
You ain’t kidding! The Israel/Palestine issue is one of my biggest axes I like to grind. Matter of fact, don’t get me started! (LoL =) I am strongly opposed to Zionism.
Chachi, yes, by critique I meant evaluation. I have, it seems, been too influenced by Nietzsche (critique is his term for positive evaluation, as opposed to negative, which would be heresy-hunting, or defining yourself by what you’re not).
David, I’m totally with you on the ‘heresy-hunting’ thing – cannot STAND it. I’m one of those people who, while happy to state my position and offer critique, believes the truth can stand up for itself.
I guess that makes me a heresy-hunter 0=).
LoL, actually, the only axe I grind is Dispensationalism and Zionism. I have zero tolerance for the abuses of these schools to scripture, to the Church, and to society.
Come to think of it, I might well be a heresy-hunter – but I define heresy much narrower than most ‘hunters’, and define orthodoxy a lot wider. I think the whole thing comes down to a few very key issues laid out in the creeds – those are the borderlines for me. So to come back to our original discussion, re. Obama, this is why universalism is not grounds for heterodoxy, nor Tony Jones concession above.