This week Tony Jones stops back by the podcast to admit that we have the best emergent podcast on the net. He also said that we throw softballs to our interviewee’s. So for this show – we don’t pull any punches.
It should be said that this interview is just an audio rip of an actual Video Chat Interview. Some of you may have been online to see it over at Shape Vine. Shape Vine is an interesting site you may want to check out. In a few weeks our video with Tony will be up.
We introduced a couple new pieces. We let Tony give us a review of our podcast. We did a “Word Blitz” where we asked about the definition of some words that he used in his new book. [pogroms, modicum, un-pin-downable, jejune, bloviations, nefarious, short shrift]
Tony talked about his new book, The New Christians. Josh has been raving about the book and his full review is here. In the end Nick gave it 8/10 Mclarens and Josh gave it 10/10. Nick played the hard ass and gave it a less than warm response in order to play into Tony’s criticism.
You can pre-order the book here at Amazon.
Tony provided the first chapter for our listeners. You can get that here.
We are aware that tony had a little bit of a hot mic. Sorry – it will be distracting, but it shouldn’t take away from the content. We were new to the mics through Shape Vines system.
[...] I was interviewed on the inimitable Nick and Josh Podcast. We had a great time, as [...]
Nick,
It was great to finally meet you this weekend in charlotte. It is such a small world. I’m actually the guy Tony was talking about in this podcast. Too funny! Tony completely misunderstood my comment about his Marcus Borg criticism. I loved Tony’s book. My review is here:
http://www.faithprogression.com/2008/01/new-christians.html
I was merely disappointed that he implied the resurrection story is ONLY valuable to him if it is a literal historical fact. Tony’s position appears stuck in modernity because he values historical facts more than symbolic meaning. The point of sharing Jesus’ resurrection story is not simply to convince people it literally happened, but instead it points to a deeper meaning about transformation through self sacrifice. The historical facts of the event are not as important and growing less convincing. We can bridge the divisive gap between left and right if we turn our focus to the deeper symbolic meanings rather than trying to prove its events as historical facts. That modernist battle over facts needs to die already. Let it go Tony! We can find harmony in the metaphor. Marcus Borg is an emergent pioneer (without the hair gel).
Thanks for the podcast guys!
To Mike: No, I’ve never said that it’s only important to me if it really happened. I’ve merely said that I think it really happened. “Let it go”?!?! No, I doubt that I will let the resurrection go…ever.
To Troy Bronsink: it sounds like I’m ripping you on the podcast, but I didn’t mean to. I think that Nick and I agree, it was the unplugged, in-the-round venue that did you in. You know I love your music, bro! Sorry it didn’t come out that way.
To Ed Stetzer: Love ya, man. Hope I get to meet you someday.
To Frank Viola: Ditto.
To Pagitt: Double Ditto.
Let’s see, who else did I offend during that interview?
Oh, yeah, Andrew Jones: I don’t really think that you live in the 80s.
Boy, I shouldn’t have had that beer before the interview.
Tony,
I would NEVER ask you to let go of the resurrection. What I’ve said is that I wish you would let go of trying to insist its historical facts are the point of the story and we that we must all agree with you. I’ll say what Borg always says, “Believe what you want about if the story literally happened. Now, let’s talk about what it means”. We can find harmony in the meaning. In the facts, we will always find division.
I have hope that Emergent doesn’t become another denomination that simply draws new boundaries based on the limits of one person’s modern theological beliefs from left to right. I hope it becomes as Brian McLaren has suggested, completely off the line. I hope we can move beyond dogmatic beliefs and toward inclusive faith.
Mike,
1) Emergent will never become a denomination as long as I’m drawing breath.
2) Where the hell did I “insist [the story's] historical facts are the point of the story and that [you] all must agree with [me]“?!? Please, quote me saying anything to that effect. You won’t find it because I never have.
And your “meaning hermeneutic” is starting to feel almost fundamentalistic to me. Do you really mean to be that strident about it?
Tony,
1) Awsome. I’m glad to hear that. Will it have to be about believing in a literal resurrection? Will that topic be out of bounds?
2) I have no desire to put words in your mouth. If you didn’t mean that then I’d like to hear your clarification. Why did you paint such a negative picture of Marcus Borg if you don’t mean to insist his views are out of bounds?
Yes, I’m strident in my stance that we should never turn the whole point of the resurrection story into believing that it literally happened.
In the podcast you said “a lot of what emergent is about is trying to get beyond this language and tone of voice that communicates some kind of certainty … in a world where we are becoming aware about how little we really know”. All I’m asking is that you not become upset when someone questions something you feel certain about.
It is hard to make a case of fundamentalism against me when I’m suggesting a big tent faith that embraces our diffent views. I’m suggesting we can agree to disagree about the historical facts, but we can find unity in the deeper meanings. That is hardly a fundamentalist stance.
[...] We’ve got a new podcast up with Tony Jones. The audio is kinda shit. But we were experimenting with Shapevine’s new recording features. If you can make it past the first 5 minutes of the interview, it gets much better. Better being a relative term. [...]
Mike,
I’d have to agree with Tony on this one…especially because he’s playing with the term “fundamentalism” to display a sort of reactive, knee-jerk kind of way of interpreting Scripture. The Bible is a historical book that dares to suggest that a transcendent God works through concrete, historical actions (immanence). If you wanted to talk about the tower of Babel or creation story in Genesis, then we could talk about the irrelevance of whether they “actually happened” or not, since there’s no way to know, no eyewitnesses, and the Jewish community self-confesses that the meaning is in the story, not in the concrete details.
Jesus’ resurrection, though, is a whole ‘nother animal. The concept of resurrection was strongly reinforced in the early Christian community not by some philosophical “meaning” reading, but by a concrete action with concrete witnesses. The New Testament, then can be followed in its response to this action in all its various documents as it carries this thread of resurrection hope through all the letters and gospels and apocalyptic. The historical facts are the meaning along with the meaning; they’re all wrapped up in each other
And of course Borg would say that (together with Crossan and Spong their other buds), since they’ve “proved” that Jesus really didn’t rise from the dead. It is irrelevant to them because 2,000 years after the point, they have enough confidence to say that they know better than those who walked with Jesus both pre- and post- resurrection.
Nate,
Those scholars wouldn’t say “they’ve ‘proved’ that Jesus really didn’t rise from the dead”. They would say that the story was written after the eye witnesses were gone and it wasn’t meant to be proof of any event happening. These storytellers encased their truths into symbolic narratives (myths) so that they can stand the test of time. Just like every other culture always has.
Why draw a line around this one narrative and treat it different? If your argument for why it should be accepted as fact is that later christian communities accepted it as fact then you’ve forced yourself to accept a host of problems. How about all the other myths? How about mistreatment of women? How about flat earth? How about literal heaven and literal hell? Do you think Paul believed in a 6 day creation and demon posession? I bet he did. But should we adopt ancient worldviews just because the authors of our sacred texts did? The point of the text is not to preserve a particular ancient worldview. The texts are there to communicate powerful truths that transcend any worldview.
This is my point. We need to end the modernist arguments about “if” it “really” happened or if it didn’t. Believing in resurrection doesn’t need to be confined to belief that the event “really” happened the way one particular account tells the facts. If so, which account? Which facts?
Why can’t we start asking what the story means instead of forcing people to believe in the particular worldview of its author? This is the place where we can transcend the mistakes of modernity and take Christianity to a place where it can survive the next Galileo, Darwin, or archeological discovery. Isn’t Tony simply reacting the same way that the fundamentalists react to him? Isn’t he just refusing to go one step further with his deconstruction?
I’ll post something over on my blog so we can chat there instead of hogging the podcast blog.
Wow, I leave the country for one week and people start commenting on this beautiful Red Cowboy Designs website. Thanks for your feedback. Tony, you have to understand you don’t need to cover your ass on a Nick and Josh Interview, we mean nothing but love, and sometimes things come out. It’s alright, as a moderator in the conversation I absolve you.
Mike – Thank you for being a person at an emergent event that I know I can sit by and not have ask me what church I go to, tell me how their church is different, or looking odd when I say “Bishop Spong saved my faith”. Hopefully more conversations coming.
By the way… Josh, the new design is tight. I might have to lure you away to work for me one day.
[...] alluded to on The Nick & Josh Podcast, there is going to be a Church Basement Road Show coming to a neighborhood near you. Not only have [...]
[...] ep 6.9 – Tony Jones & The New Christians [...]