An Interesting Article in an Interesting Place

Awhile back I reviewed Shane Claiborne's book Jesus for President. I have a deep appreciation for who Shane is and for the work he is doing. There are some people who get nervous about Shane, but I think that is primarily because his commitment to live simply makes some people uncomfortable with our own sense of conviction. I believe in every generation the Church needs prophets at the edge who embody the gospel in such radical and visible ways that they keep the Church alive. So whether you love him or not, Shane is helping the Church continue the right conversation.

This week someone forwarded me a link to an article he wrote for Esquire Magazine (of all publications). I'm still sort of floored that Esquire published it. Shane can at times be "colorful" in his language and descriptons of the Church, but I think most of you will like what Shane is trying to say to those outside the Church. My favorite line in the article is his response to the question about hell.

Warning: the article is in Esquire Magazine so some of you will have to overlook the links surrouding the article and forget that your pastor sent you to this website. But I'm excited that Shane's voice was permitted in this kind of forum. I'd love to know what you think of it...

http://www.esquire.com/features/best-and-brightest-2009/shane-claiborne-1209

Comments

[Patrick Oden]

In fact, the entire story of Jesus is about a God who did not just want to stay "out there" but who moves into the neighborhood, a neighborhood where folks said, "Nothing good could come." It is this Jesus who was accused of being a glutton and drunkard and rabble-rouser for hanging out with all of society's rejects, and who died on the imperial cross of Rome reserved for bandits and failed messiahs. This is why the triumph over the cross was a triumph over everything ugly we do to ourselves and to others. It is the final promise that love wins.

I would add a word to the first sentence, and that would link it to the last. "...the entire story of Jesus is about a holy God who did not just want to stay 'out there' but who moves into the neighborhood... This is why the triumph over the cross was a triumph over everything ugly we do to ourselves and to others."

Participating in God's holiness means participating with He who 'moves into the neighborhood'.

[Anita Henck]

Wow. First, it's amazing that he has this kind of national forum to reach those who aren't going to be reading Christianity Today or, even more, the Nazarene publication, Holiness Today. Thanks for the link. Second, the kind of transparency of offering an apology for what is done in the name of Christ (but isn't really Christ) may go a long way towards breaking down some walls that keep Christians in a holy huddle and non-believers largely outside our influence.

In a lifetime of working with college students, some of the saddest stories I've heard haven't been of non-believers who had messed up lives because of life choices they've made (although those exist). Rather, some of the saddest stories are of young people who grew up in the church and have seen the nastiest stuff played out in the name of "godliness" (including lots of preacher's kids who have been deeply wounded by seeing how people in the church treated their parents or each other).

The complex simplicity that Shane mentions -- that God is love and we are to love Him and our neighbor as ourselves -- requires that we give more of ourselves than we sometimes want. So, we hid behind structures and systems and rules that we create ... that are less attractive than the simplicity of the Gospel.

Even with 99 in the fold, if this article brings one more sheep in, it is well worth it. Good stuff to think about!

[Chris Johnson]

It's encouraging to see it published in a mainstream magazine, and I hope it leads to more exposure. It'd be great to change the Christian stereotype to something more favorable, and something that better reflects who Christ really is.

[Les Schulz]

The PRIMARY story of Jesus is the Gospel of Grace. It isn't social justice, it isn't saving the planet, and isn't helping the poor, it's GOD coming to earth and redeeming sinful humanity one person at a time. Yes we need to help others but we need to convince people in LOVE about God's saving grace. Shane hangs out with Brian Mclaren who is an apostate because he denies substitutionary atonement. I'm not sure what his stance on salvation is but Mclaren isn't the guy to embrace.

[Les]

I have not read Shane’s book ’The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical' so I cannot offer an opinion. There is no question that he garners a lot of publicity, both good and bad. From what I have read on his views, I have no question that he and I would agree on much … as well as differ on some significant points theologically (none of which should prevent us from fellow shipping in Christ.)

On the other side of the fence of positive reviews, which I find particularly interesting since the criticism is not the typical ranting of a politically right-wing Christian (the author is a self-professed “democrat (labor) christian [from the Bronx]; born, raised and residing in the inner-city; with a peace sign tattoed on my arm since I was seventeen”).

there is this critical review from PK Keith of Flemington, NJ on Amazon of the book …

This is a difficult book to review. I found myself occasionally writing a hearty “Amen!” in the margin only to find the next dozen pages full of utter nonsense and dangerous error.

On the positive side, one has to be impressed with Shane Claiborne’s commitment to live out a radical Christianity as opposed to a watered down version that is more indebted to pop-culture than to Christ and the Bible. He occasionally has keen insights regarding western Christianity such as his criticisms of our infatuation with all things big and flashy, or the ease with which we pacify our consciences with symbolic acts that distance us from truly needy people.

But the book suffers from numerous flaws that make it impossible to endorse. To begin with, it changes the mission of the church from that given by Christ in the Great Commission. Claiborne dreams of “creating another world,” a “safer more sustainable world” (pp. 25, 221) that suspiciously bears more resemblance to the Democratic party platform than it does the Bible. For all of his complaints about the church succumbing to culture, he seems to be oblivious to the fact that his dream bears striking resemblance to the utopian visions of the cultural left in the west (with the exception of abortion). He repeatedly states that this vision was the vision of the early church with no references or citations from the early fathers to justify his claim and conveniently ignores the fact that the Apostles of the New Testament era engaged in no social activism of the sort he routinely endorses. Jesus clearly warned us against the notion that the world is a perfectible place: at least apart from his return to establish the Kingdom. He warns against false messiahs who would claim to be able to save a deteriorating world (Matt. 24:4-14). In short, the mission of the church is not to redeem society, end poverty, save the environment or prevent wars. Rather, its mission is to proclaim the gospel of salvation from sin through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ (Matt 28:18-20). The depth of his confusion here is evident when he describes true conversion in terms of environmentally conscious activity such as running vehicles on veggie oil and laundry machines powered by stationary bikes (p.149). This is a gospel the Apostles somehow missed!

[Les Schulz]

It's encouraging to know that if we comment positively to the blogs our comments will remain on the site.

You think maybe you could explain the rules for commenting?

[Scott Daniels]

Les,
Thanks for your comments. I would just add the following responses.

I'm always amazed when people like the reviewer you quote are able to equate the Great Commission with proclaiming "the gospel of salvation from sin through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ" as though they have simply quoted Matthew 28. I read the Great Commission as saying three things: (1) make disciples (people who live like Jesus) of all nations; (2) baptizing them (I assume that would mean into the resident alien people called "the Church"); and (3) teach them to obey everything I commanded you.

I read nothing in the Great Commission that is as seemingly reductionistic as what I read as PK Keith's equating of the Great Commission with some kind of individualistic saving of people's souls through cognitive assent.

I would take issue with his dismissing the radical nature of the Christian life that Shane is proposing as beyond the scope of the apostles and early church fathers (and mothers). Shane may not make reference to them in the Revolution book but he gives a number of citations from the early apostles and the church fathers in "Jesus for President."

To say "the mission of the church is not to redeem society, end poverty, save the environment or prevent wars" is simply not a very thoughtful thing to say. Obviously the environment was not high on a pre-industrial people's list of concerns (although the bible has plenty to say about creation-care and the proper dominioning role of humankind), but to ignore Paul's frequent referencing the hope of a new creation, the continual call by Jesus to identify with the poor, and the repeated emphasis on forgiveness and peacemaking in the ministry of Jesus ends up reducing salvation to a Gnostic escape of the soul into the spirit world of heaven (which is the exact heresy that the church fathers battled for the first 400 years of church history).

It's simply not true to say that McLaren rejects substitutionary atonement. He rejects substitution as the only way of understanding the atonement. When Christians see the cross ONLY as a substitution for sin (and not for example as a way of loving enemies or as God's victory over evil), then salvation gets reduced down to cognitive assent and the call to radical discipleship is left behind.

Thanks again Les for your comments. I think it's fair to raise questions about how Shane thinks the gospel ought to be embodied in the 21st century, but I would be cautious about reducing the gospel down to gnositicism just because you think Shane is too Democratic or loves the environment too much. I'm not sure I agree with all of Shane's suggestions but I'm thankful for people like Shane who push the Church to take seriously the radical claims of Jesus who asked his disciples to leave everthing and follow him and then commissioned his disciples to go and make more just like them.

Blessings - Scott

[Les]

Pastor Scott,

Hey, let me give you some thoughts about your reply. The thing that is lost in your Great Commission explanation is the salvation and transformation aspect which must be the one and only starting point. Christ like living is obvious, but only after the sinner has the new birth experience. To focus on anything before this is unbiblical and incomprehensible.

- Inherent corruption extends to every part of man... body, soul, spirit. How can man do anything pleasing to God without the forgiveness of the cross and the Holy Spirit's transforming power. Check out: Gen 6:5, Rom 1:21-23, Rom 8:5-8, Ephes 4:17-18, Ephes 8:44.

- Everything Christ taught as to being a disciple begins with new birth... John 3:3, 2 Cor 5:17, Rom 6:4.

Yes, we are to be like Christ. A disciple literally is one "who walks the same path as the one he follows." But for everyone it begins with re-birth and transformation... salvation.

Your last paragraph appears so "cutting edge" but it's simply basic Christianity. "Radical discipleship" is living as a Christian. It is not revolutionary, or radical. Some pastors today simply try to sound different from the true basics of the Bible. Sin, repentence, hell and the cross are "old fashion" teaching. Paul wrote "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

I assume that you believe in all the right stuff, but you seem to want your message to seem more gen-X. It seems that you're not hitting the heart of the gospel, more the fringe. It seems that you might be trying to appeal to a certain group.

Not trying to be offensive so please don't take it that way. I grew up in a family where we had some interesting discussions at dinner time that at some times became loud but we still love each other very much.

I would appreciate your reply and clarification if you so desire.

Your Friend,

Les

[Scott]

I think the message of new birth is implied in the call to baptize people. To invite people to put to death the old life and experience the new life of grace in Christ is the primary call of the gospel. You have no argument with me.

I guess I am reacting to what I have experienced as the American Evangelical interpretation of the message of sin, repentance, hell and the cross. To experience new life is to then actually live a new life. I think the message usually is something more along the lines of, "Receive forgiveness, and if you get around to doing justice, loving mercy, and walking humbly, that would be good (but its not a requirement)."

My point in posting this article from Shane is simply to say, I like people like Shane who push the Church to consider what all the ramifications of the new life look like. I also like that the radicalness of his witness is giving him the crediblity to speak to a secular audience.

I don't think I'm trying to be hip, cool, or Gen-X. I think I'm simply trying to take the whole gospel and the whole great commission seriously. I think when Paul wrote that the "message of the cross is foolishness" he didn't just mean that the message of Christ's atonement doesn't make sense to the world he also means that the the cross's message of making peace by loving enemies and overcoming evil with good seems quite idiotic to principalities and power who are used to destroying their enemies through war.

Again, that may sound like "new stuff" or an attempt to say something different. But I believe that I'm trying to recover the oldest stuff and the heart of the gospel spoken by the apostles which has largely been lost.

[Les]

Pastor Scott,
I'll agree with you that things have been lost but it's typically been the Gospel of Grace. Most of the time in our Evangelical Churches you'll hear things that will make you happy or things that will improve your marriage, business,etc. but not the Gospel. I'm not a fan of the Christian right because all we here from many of them is law and not Gospel. Paul didn't go around and tell people to get the laws changed so that we could outlaw abortion (although I'm totally against abortion and know that it's immoral) or get the ten commandments posted in the classroom or call for a day of prayer (I think a day of reading Romans or Galations makes more sense)or have laws passed to oppress and tax the wealth producers to give their money to the poor and then create a dependency class---whew that was a long sentence---Paul went into cities and primarily preached the Gospel of Grace.

To make my point, ask someone in the Church to explain what justification is and you'll get nothing. I've heard that this question was asked at an evangelical pastors convention and maybe 15% even knew what it was. Our knowledge of the basics in Churches today is terrible.

I do believe in a balance of Gospel and sanctification. Jesus didn't say He would save us if we loved him and he didn't say that he would save us if we obeyed his words he just said--If you love me keep my obey my words.