Hello all. I haven't done anything with my blog in a long time....maybe it's something about having two children now (and it's harder for me to hide from Jill when she needs my help). Anyway, I wrote this really long email to a few friends about Shane
Claiborne's book "The
Irresistible Revolution." Anyway, I thought I'd throw it up on my blog to fill some empty space, and to hear your thoughts in case you've read it....So here it is:
Ok, ok, I know I said I was going to type this email and send it to you guys a few months ago, but I got frustrated by the book and distracted by other books, and frankly just put it off. So, I’ve finally pushed through and thought I would share the few things that I liked and the many frustrations I had with Shane Claiborne’s book. Let me start with the Good:
The Good
I think Shane Claiborne is in some ways like a modern prophet. I don’t think that every word he says is a correct representation of God’s Word, but Claiborne’s words and even more so his lifestyle have a way of cutting through the superficiality and fluff of American evangelicalism. He does and says things that would make many evangelicals very uncomfortable. He challenges evangelicals in areas where they need to be challenged like poverty and community.
I especially appreciate that Claiborne backs up his message with his life. He has committed himself fully to the ministry that God has called him to, and in order to fully commit, he as devoted himself to chastity. This Scriptural calling has all but been forgotten in Protestant Christianity, and it certainly shows his level of commitment. Unlike so many postmoderners who wear their designer clothes to their multi-million-dollar mega-church facilities where they talk about social justice and the evils of materialism, Claiborne isn’t just giving lip service to the issue of poverty. He doesn’t gripe about homelessness, he lives among the homeless. He doesn’t just criticize the evils of American consumerism, he rejects it in the way he lives his life. I applaud his devotion to his calling. I have much more respect for Claiborne than all these other “so called” radicals, who are basically as consumeristic as the previous generation; they just talk a lot about social-injustice (and they have tattoos and really cool black-rimmed glasses).
I do want to just add one point here. Claiborne’s calling to chastity will mean that his calling is going to be considerably different than those of us who have been called to raise children. He has the freedom to do things that those who are called to be parents would be unable to do. Neither his calling nor the calling to raise children is greater than the other, they are simply different. Claiborne can travel, living among the homeless, etc…. while those who are raising children, are training the next generation of Christians. Both callings are very important.
Finally, I greatly appreciate Claiborne’s focus on community, specifically the church as the community of Christ. Without the church, Claiborne’s ideas are simply a mix of socialism and liberalism, but when the church is the deeply committed community of Christ followers, grace, love, and generosity flow from it. The answer to the world’s problems is Jesus Christ and his church. It is not political ideologies. I really liked this, “Redistribution comes from community….it is what happens when people fall in love with each other….” Generosity flows from community. It cannot truly be generosity if it is mandated by a political ideology.
The Bad
First, let me say that I just get really annoyed with all of these “postmodern” Christian leaders who use words like “revolution,” “emerging,” “radical,” and all the other language that speaks to being a “new kind of Christian.” You find these kinds of statements among so many in the “emergent church.” Here’s just a few I jotted down from Claiborne’s book:
“There are those of us who, rather than simply reject pop evangelicalism, want to spread another kind of Christianity, a faith that has as much to say about this world as it does about the next.” (p 24)
“The time has come for a new kind of conversation, a new kind of Christianity, a new kind of revolution.” (p 29)
“Christianity often has offered little to the world, other than the hope that things will be better in heaven.” (p. 17)
“I wasn’t exactly sure what a fully devoted Christian looked like, or if the world had even seen one in the last few centuries.” (p. 71)
Has the past 2000 years of Christendom been a big failure or waste of time? Has the Holy Spirit been simply waiting around in vain for the past 20 centuries hoping that this generation will finally make up for all of the failures of the previous generations? How unbelievably arrogant and historically shortsighted! It is an absolutely false notion that Christians are a bunch of people doing no earthly good while they sit around and wait for heaven (I realize that some Christians and some churches do this, and that needs to be corrected. But, Claiborne and others over exaggerate this stereotype). Christians have offered little for the world? How about these few examples, right off the top of my head: the abolition of slavery, women’s rights, doing away with evil pagan practices such as child-sacrifice, promoting education all over the world, the establishment of millions of hospitals, orphanages, food banks, homeless shelters, etc…. and this doesn’t include all of the good that has come about in the western world as an indirect result of Christian influence. It’s trendy and politically correct to criticize the failures of the Christian church (i.e. the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc…) or to throw stones at those evangelicals who are just sitting around waiting for heaven, but I believe the church has done far more good than it ever gets credit.
Also, I don’t believe that our goal as Christians should be to pursue a “revolution” or a new way of doing Christianity. I believe we should seek “reformation” and recover what it truly means to be a “follower of Jesus.” This may simply be semantics but maybe not. I should look back to Jesus and to the historic saints of the church in order to learn how to become the Christian I am called to be. I do not look forward to some sort of new Christian-Utopia that I am hoping to build with my generation. The commitment to building Christian community, to taking care of the poor, to ministering to the body as well as the soul, etc… are not “new” ideas. They are as ancient as Christianity itself. What we need is not a “new” way of doing things. We need to recover these traditions and return to the to the way God has always intended us to be. I do think that Claiborne does look back to Jesus on many points, but he also skips over so much of church history as if he and his generation are the first to apply these Jesus principles. He is simply wrong on this point.
The Ugly
Here’s my main concern with Claiborne’s book: His theology is extremely idealistic, shortsighted, and on some points unbiblical. I commend his passion and his lifestyle, but I believe he is naïve and sometimes just flat out wrong when it comes to the realm of ideas. Claiborne is resentful when people write him off as “idealistic,” but he is so imprecise in his theology that you can’t help but discount much of what he says as naïve. He’s correct when he writes, “And the answer to bad theology is not no theology but good theology.” (169). But I believe his “good theology” is just a repackaged form of “bad” liberation theology from the 1900s. His version may appeal much more to American Evangelicals rather than oppressed South Americans, but it is basically the same kind ideology.
Here’s an example of what I’m talking about: Claiborne writes, “Poverty was created not by God, but by you and me, because we have not learned to love our neighbors as ourselves. Gandhi put it well when he said, ‘There is enough for everyone’s need, but there is not enough for everyone’s greed.’” (170). Here he quotes the renowned Christian theologian Gandhi…..oh wait….Gandhi was Hindu. Ok, so I joke, but here’s the point, Claiborne emphasizes some really important “theologies,” while completely neglecting other key points of Christian doctrine. He talks about loving our neighbor and generosity, but he says nothing at all about the key Christian doctrine of sin/original sin that brings about poverty. He talks about poverty as if it is the primary problem that Christianity seeks to solve, but poverty is just a problem, not the problem. Christian orthodoxy asserts that evil is very real and is the problem with the world. Demonic forces are real and at work to undo and destroy God’s good creation, and those forces are at work in the hearts and minds of all humanity. The primary problem of this world is evil not poverty. Poverty is simply one outcome of evil. Evil causes rich people to be selfish and hoard. Evil also causes poor people to make really bad choices that lead to even more poverty. It would be great if rich people became radically generous and shared with those in poverty. Christ commands this to Christians who are rich (not just for the sake of the poor but for their own sakes). However, poverty will never be solved simply by rich people sharing. Sin is much deep and much more destructive than this. Hasn’t the 20th century proved that no utopia will ever be established simply by redistribution of goods.
Again, Claiborne is right to emphasize social responsibility, but he seems to do so only to minimize personal responsibility. Sin has a corporate nature and a corporate effect on society, and we evangelicals should not neglect this truth. Neither should we neglect the reality of personal sin and the responsibility of individuals. The longer I’m in ministry, the more I realize that problems can almost never be solved by throwing money at stuff. For every person who genuinely needs help, there is another one trying to take advantage of people’s generosity. Every week I encounter people who lie, manipulate, steal, hate, abuse, lust, etc…. Christ and the salvation that he offers is the only solution to the world’s sin and evil. Focusing on corporate evils like poverty and war (he spent a whole chapter blasting the Iraq war without any discussion on just war theory or a proper use of Christian warfare) without addressing personal responsibility and the sins of individuals is idealistic.
Ok, well I promised a long email….so here it is. I was actually going to write more, but I’d be surprised if you made it this far in my ramblings. Perhaps I’m a little hard on Claiborne…curious what you think.
Cell phone salespersons are the “used-car” salesmen of the technology age. Why is it that every time I speak with one of them they spend 1% of their time actually listening to me and 99% of their time trying to convince me how much I need the latest, greatest device? I went into the store the other day and said straight out, “All I want is a cell phone for making calls (there’s a novel idea!). I use it primarily for business. I don’t need a lot of extra minutes. I want as basic of a plan as possible at as low of a cost as possible.” So, the guy decided to totally ignore all of this information, and take me to the latest fancy all-in-one phone/internet device. He told me that we can package stuff together to get me a really good deal. He said that if we bundled certain things with my home phone and internet service, it would be equal to what I am currently paying. His sales pitch sounded pretty good and reasonable, but unfortunately he wasn’t listening to me and was trying to sell me a techno-lemon. After a few clarifying questions, I discovered that the only way the cost would balance out is if I dropped my home internet service in favor for the internet service on the phone. I then asked him, “So, what you’re telling me is that I would have to do all my internet work on this 3 inch screen and with this 3 inch keyboard?” He paused, silently, to consider my question. “Yeah, I suppose so,” he responded nervously as he realized he was losing the sale, “but if you add this thing and this other additional cost, you can hook your computer up to your phone, etc, etc….” I said, “Thanks for your time” and walked out of the store, never to return again.
