Mr. Jones, you forgot something

Interesting piece over here by Tony Jones. First, a bit of background: Jonathan Merritt, as I mentioned last week, supported Chik-fil-A in The Atlantic. Blogger Azariah Southworth responded to that by outing Merritt. (The party of tolerance strikes again.) Merritt responded to that by saying, yes, he had had a homosexual experience, but he does not identify as a homosexual.

And now, progressive theologian Tony Jones responds to the whole thing as follows:
Primitive as it is on issues of science and biology — and, yes, sexuality — the Bible doesn’t really show any sophisticated, developed, modern view of sexuality. Those of us who esteem the Bible as the inspired word of God are left with the task of weaving the ancient narrative of scripture into the fabric of our modern understanding of human sexuality.

This isn’t an easy task, but it is possible. For instance, one can make the commitment to interpret specific verses of the Bible (“Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error”) always in light of the overarching themes of grace, acceptance, and the progressively opening kingdom of God (“So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus”). [Emphasis in original.]

Hang on -- isn't there something missing there? Before one gets to the point where grace is applied to sin, isn't there something that has to happen first -- something called repentance?

Jones, it appears to me, is leaving out that very important step. There's a name for that kind of thinking, and it's not a good one.

(H/T Katelyn Beaty)


another contradiction
Mr. Jones is quite the contortionist. He professes to accept the inspiration of Scripture, yet thinks it inferior in its views of life issues. Poor God; He has the knowledge and ability to bring the cosmos into existence, yet lacks the tools to keep up with our postmodern times! What I wonder is why anyone with that view of God even bothers with the Bible. After all, this "deity" is nothing more than an idol, fashioned to conform to our wishes and recast in our image, so as not to be threatening to our self-sanctified desires.
Sadly, Gina, the attitude you refer to is barely even shocking or disappointing anymore. In order to be shocked and/or disappointed, you'd have to expect otherwise. And how can we when more and more churches are ORDAINING the unrepentant.
I definitely agree with you on this one: just because someone engages in homosexual activity doesn't make them gay (especially if they don't enjoy the experience). It doesn't even look like Merritt had one - I'm guessing all they did was embrace, fully clothed, before parting ways. How is that gay? I embrace all - doesn't make me gay/bi/etc.

BreakPoint Blog