The Evangelical Tension

I've been featuring a Relevant article on my blog that involves discussion by Colson and Claiborne. It's been interesting to see all the different sides to an issue.

As for your question, I'm still trying to wrap my head around all the different sides of "the church" right now. For too many years I've just been a christian with my head in the sand without really engaging my faith. More or less a time-card christian.

These days I've really been trying to search for truth wherever that leads me. And I'm finding it leads me away from a lot of what I thought truth was.

I like Shane Claiborne. :)

Mud Puppy, I recognize that in drawing sides it will frustrate people who don't want to see sides drawn. I recognize that compartmentalization has its drawbacks, so consider the lines very fluid.

I had a long tirade relating to this interview that i was going to leave here, but no one wants to here another rant against theonomists, and i don't want to be uncharitable to Chuck or Shane. If I can think of anything constructive to say, I may come back later.

tim

The answer to your question is no. The persepctive from the right is not that the moral good must be asserted because if we do not God will disappear but rather it must be asserted because God is a holy God who has instructed them to do so and they are His visible representation on this earth. It is rather straight forward.

http://anuncommongrace.wordpress.com/

DC, I hear what you are saying, and this becomes the tension of the three. "How we do this?"

And this is why I am drawn to Shane's perspective. I have found love to be infinitely more progressive and productive that shouting. Shane said rather provocatively that "people don't remember what you say when you are mean."

Interesting. I would put Shane on the left (given his ties to the political left) and Greg as a third way (a somewhat traditional Anabaptist approach).

To me, people like Colson simply take part of the bigger picture and run with it. The idea that God will abandon a nation because of either its unbelief or disobedience is an Old Testament idea. Didn't Jesus change a lot of things in regard to our relationship with God, including making it very personal?

I see people like Colson once again as Christians who take bits and pieces of the Bible -- ones that can be used to control others, of course -- and leaving other very relevant pieces out. If you're going to take part of the OT or even the NT and use it against others, then you better be willing to take the rest of it -- including the parts that will affect you!

I find it interesting that the whole issue of truth has been ingnored in this discussion. What if some things are true and Colson thnks he is honoring a holy God in standing for those things? I agree with Kelli that Colson can overemphasies some Biblical teachings and underemphasies others. But we all do this in different degrees an overemphasis does nto negate the truth of the position.

DC - The question isn't about is it true. But is it true in our lives.

while watching this i was really struck by the interactions..

To Mark above, I don't see how Greg presented himself as a third way. Throughout he was very intent on identifying himself in opposition to Chuck. Shane on the other hand didn't feel the need to so much distance himself from Chuck or Greg but really pushed things to another level, in my mind. That's truly what third way is to me...

On a more personal note, I was saddened by Greg's bitterness and brashness in his argument. Shane and Chuck were not as interested in fighting as Greg seemed to be. As the debate went on I became less and less interested in what Greg had to say and more interested in what Jesus would say. Sounds kind of cheezy, but that was my thought.. And to be honest, I found a bit more love in Chuck than I expected (not much more) and Shane raised the bar so high that the other two stopped straining to see it.

David, you captured my words perfectly. Greg seems like he wanted to argue. In fact he kept using the words, "I would argue..."

I agree that Chuck seemed like he was trying to find common ground.

Hope you don't mind me chiming in.

I think it is very generational. People who watched the demise of fascism, dealt with communism and watched the battle with racism have a different mindset when it comes to the government, problems and solutions.

I just think they were raised during a time when the government had the answers and that idea is ingrained. I think comics show this trajectory more than anything. The heroes like Superman and Batman. Watch their progression to see how ideals change.

People are more skeptical IMO. Less trusting that government has the answers and that translates into our Christian walk.

I know I'm chiming in late here, but I just had time to watch that video. I'm so glad you pointed it out to us, Jonathan. I thought it was very worthwhile to watch.

Darin, I tend to agree with you. That's what I kept thinking as I watched it, how different the generations were in their response to things, especially concerning expecting the government to fix the problems and have answers to the questions.

Shane is an amazing man and I love the grace that he exudes. It seems to ooze from his pores :). I so appreciate the kingdom mentality that he just refused to be swayed from no matter what the other said.

Well. Greg comes off as argumentative because he is a theologian. Shane always comes off with an "aw shucks, lets just love" approach that is endearing, but doesn't go deep enough. I think Greg offers the third way because almost everyone I know who loves Shane's stuff is voting for Obama, while Chuck's folks will vote for McCain. Greg's take is a third way because he is consistantly offering a way out of a two-party political system. Shane offers the best way for tangible action...but is usually silent when it comes to systemic questions. That is why he can fit so nicely in as a God's Politics writer and a friend of the Sojourners folks. But, from a systemic perspective, it is Greg who offers the third way. :)

My last comment sounded lamer than I intented. I think Claiborne gets it 95% of the way. The focus on embodiment is HUGE. And that is an area where the other panelists fall short. But when it comes specifically to the question of larger political engagement, Shane doesn't really offer much to help one wrap one's mind around the issues. Greg, though he doesn't offer much in this interview, goes further down that road.

Hey Jonathan,

Great discussion! I'm an Australian, living in Nashville and I'll throw my two cents in..... Firstly, my observation from living in the states (particularly the south) is that we in the US have politicized Christianity WAY too much. We over-emphasize politics and religion and too often try and marry them.

I agree slightly with Kelli, sometimes it seems like people use their theological stance to gain power over others (its happened all throughout history), and people take great pride in "thinking they have all the answers"..... and David.... I say an AMEN to that!

But to answer your question - Morality is important, and we as believers in a democratic nation should stand up for what we believe in..... but when people disagree with us, we need to let our examples be our witness. So I side with Shane on this issue..... The greatest commandment is to 'Love God and love people"..... and love is a verb. Im curious Mark the “aw shucks, lets just love” attitude.... why isn't that deep enough? Im always fascinated when I hear that? Because throughout the world... we Christians are not often highly regarded in the 'love' category? At least their view of us in the States....

I think Shane is right on about this..... I'm also lucky because he speaks (via video) at all of our events The GO Concert :) So maybe I'm a little biased?!

Lucas, I share your opinions. I think love can easily be looked at as so simple that it seems to be missing something. We want to do more.

"Aw shucks, let's just love" doesn't go deep enough because most people are operating with a very shallow understanding of love. Too often, love is seen as a sentiment. That is how you can get so many Christians saying they love everyone yet somehow equating that with being nice to people.

What are the implications of true love? That sort of question requires lots of painfully deep thinking.

For example: what does it mean to love Chinese factory workers? How do we even begin to really tackle this sort of complex question without an honest examination of how we spend our own money?

What does it mean to love an illegal immigrant? Or an Iraqi villager? Or my own family?

Mark, the complexity of love in each situation only heightens the fact the love is first a fruit of the Spirit and something we can never effectively do on our own.

Part of the tension with these three perspectives is that love gets lost among the politics, when it is often non-violence and forgiveness that truly chance cultures. Tutu, MLK and Gandhi proved this.

Although I know you know this.