I have a question for Shane Claiborne, who spoke at the Life Together Conference in February 2012 at St. Luke’s United Methodist Church. I attended largely because I have heard of him around the edges of life, so to speak. It was good to see him and hear him in person.
Before I get to the question, however, I want to say that I enjoyed hearing him. He had a few insights that I will take with me. He had his way of critiquing the evangelical church. Thus, he refers to singing Jus as I am, where we come as we are, leave as we were, live as we always have. I can appreciate that. Yet, I suppose such comments would have more integrity with me if he could find something about the theologically liberal or politically Left to criticize. I should also say that some of his comments were just plain insightful. At the collision between church and world, we need imagination. Is it is easy to “hallmark” the story. We can do that with the story of Jesus, of course, but we can also do that with our own lives. He stressed that we need to celebrate aspects of tradition, and confess many other parts. I agree, although I think every year United Methodists are confessing something. Of course, I also would add that most communion services, and maybe every week, congregations confess their sins.
Here is what I question.
You say that Christians are to be different from our culture. Granted. However, does being different mean being in favor of the destruction of the culture in which you live? Here is my observation. Pacifism was a strategy Jesus used for his particular setting. Had the Jews adopted his path, the wars of the 60’s AD and the destruction of the Temple may not have occurred. Jesus never had to head a government (hence, the title of your book Jesus for President is just silly, but I will let that pass. I am mindful that the New Testament recognized the authority of political leaders and the authority of Christ.) Pacifism as your one absolute in this world (except hating traditional Christian values and apparently Western Civilization) is a way to destroy the nation that adopts it. I would point out that Paul in his lists of virtues and vices, his account of household rules, and his statements regarding the role of government (Romans 13, along with statements by Peter about praying for the emperor) utilize the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. Paul suggests that Christians are not to favor the downfall of a culture, but to be light and salt within it, using what is good in the culture as a bond with it. If we allow the difference to define the relationship, we can hardly be salt and light in it. From a political standpoint, I hope you choose to be different enough not to vote.
Having gotten that off my chest, let me say that I respect you. You are living what you preach. I confess being tired of preachers and bishops who live off the wealthy through their giving on the one hand and condemn them as greedy oppressors on the other. You are at least seeking to live out the difference you think followers of Christ should exhibit in personal life and in their life together. I think the church is broad enough to include those who want to live and believe the way you do. I can respect that.
You do write, and I assume drive and fly in planes as you go to conferences. You partake of the culture of capitalism and the fruits of Western Civilization, while at the same time, as noted above, encouraging its destruction. You cannot avoid the hypocrisy completely. Yet, you are seeking to do what you can to highlight a difference you think is important. Again, I appreciate that.
Shane Claiborne is, in many ways, a throwback to the Jesus People days, especially the "Christian Commune" types. He is yet another version of the Anabaptist view of the relationship between church and culture making its way into Mainline Protestant denominations. I do not agree. He is also politically Left and pacifist. He seems to weave all of this into someone who views himself as a radical disciple of Jesus. I am sure he thinks so. By the third talk, I suspected that he thought not anyone who disagreed with his position was as radical of a disciple as he was. He certainly seems to think he has come up with something new. I do not think so. In addition, what he has come up, while I respect it, is not a path I choose to follow. This world is far too messy to adopt any utopian position, and particularly that of pacifism.
