“Dirty” Theology
It’s interesting to have students read Shane Claiborne. Most love him. A few are furious and protest. But not many are neutral: “Yeah, I could take or leave Claiborne.”
Esquire invited him to address those who no longer believe or who barely believe. You can find the link here. Here’s a sample:
I have a friend in the UK who talks about “dirty theology” — that we have a God who is always using dirt to bring life and healing and redemption, a God who shows up in the most unlikely and scandalous ways. After all, the whole story begins with God reaching down from heaven, picking up some dirt, and breathing life into it. At one point, Jesus takes some mud, spits in it, and wipes it on a blind man’s eyes to heal him. (The priests and producers of anointing oil were not happy that day.)
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.
It is this Jesus who was born in a stank manger in the middle of a genocide. That is the God that we are just as likely to find in the streets as in the sanctuary, who can redeem revolutionaries and tax collectors, the oppressed and the oppressors… a God who is saving some of us from the ghettos of poverty, and some of us from the ghettos of wealth.
Mike, if you think Shane’s writings have a powerful impact on your students – I’d imagine you can picture what it did to this senior lady’s heart!! I’m so thankful for Shane the other young preachers and writers that are shaking the church awake! This is an exciting time to be a Believer in and Follower of Jesus. Thanks so much for tweeting and blogging this article!!!!!
Miss you, dear pastor/teacher/friend!!!
I miss you, too, Kathy. I’m out of town almost every weekend. But . . . depending on when Chris’s Thanksgiving basketball tournament in Wichita Falls ends on the Saturday after Thanksgiving . . . I hope to be at Highland a week from Sunday!
“a God who is saving some of us from the ghettos of poverty, and some of us from the ghettos of wealth”
Thousands upon thousands of those who are “saved from the ghettos of wealth” starve to death in third-world countries, never having heard the “word of God.” I marvel at the lyrical language that is used to try and make the harsh “realities” of Christianity palpable.
Brett, I read that differently than you. God saves the poor and rich from sin, not from living in physical ghettos. Therefore they must have heard the word of God. Perhaps I do not understand what you are saying.
Clint,
I’m saying that people use all sorts of fancy language to justify the existence of poverty (and cancer, cannibalism, torture, slavery, hell, and the list goes on…) in a God-created world
Ultimately, the purpose of many sermons and religious speak in general is to make the negative aspects of Christianity (trillions burn in hell forever while a fortunate few live in orgasmic bliss, for example) palpable and even preferable to simple non-existence when you leave this plane.
Brett, I would encourage you to read Claiborne’s Irresistible Revolution or check him out online at the Simple Way. It is sad that what you’re describing actually takes place, but you won’t find that message with Shane.
Brett, thanks, I did not understand where you were coming from. There was a time when I would have preferred “non-existence when you leave this plane.” I tried to justify no-God because of all the suffering in this world (including mine) but I was not able to. I think we humans need to justify anything we believe. I do not agree with your atheism but I may be able to understand how you got there.
What I don’t get is why people like Claiborne think they ought to presume to apologize for all Christians. Where does he get that prerogative, I wonder?
The culture of public apology is tiresome, and I would not expect it to have much if any effect on the nonbelievers among us. Likewise, presuming to apologize in behalf of a whole nation, as is today’s presidential style, is a big, transparent, sickening sham. Apologies of this kind reek of insincerity, manipulation, and political expediency – Claiborne’s included. Nobody hired him for the job; he just sort of assumed it was his.
qb
qb – I suppose it had to happen – all siblings come to a disagreement, some sooner and some later than others. [you like that closed circle?? ]
This is our turn. At least it seems to me that the joining at the hip isn’t quite as exquisitely snug today as it has been on other occasions. 
I’d say Claiborne has the exact same authorization (?) to write his opinion as any other writer – especially when writing about his Savior. Further, I see no applicable comparison nor brotherhood between Shane and Obama. A very big apple and maybe not so big an orange, imho. Shane has the exact same authorization to preach/write God’s truth as do you or any other teacher/writer/messenger of God. Again, imho.
It was my experience that Claiborne brought me to a self examination and to question where am I with those in need,(?) much as Paul admonished the church in Corinth in Chapter 10 & 11 of 1 Corinthians, and I DO see an applicable association of Paul’s admonishment and Shane’s.
How many of us will sleep under a bridge with the homeless in order to really understand their manner of life? How many of us have gone to India, sought out Mother Teresa to subsequently end up sleeping on the floor of the leper colony? And if we have, how many of us have actively put into practice the banishing of those problems through our own lives and manner of life? He is radical, but so were all those in the 1st century that took care of the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, etc, and by such actions Jesus says we will be greeted and accepted by Him – to His right side?
Is there a way to correct an error or a lack in our living sermons other than stating what they are and their possible solution?
qb, dear friend, I bow to your especially gifted wordsmanship and excellent education training. And I do admit that Clairborne and many of his generation are radicals – but would it not be better for all of us to demonstrate more of that radical teaching in living of his?
And, of course, there’s always the possibility that I’ve completely missed the point, in which case – ‘help me somebody’!!
No sweat, thou unfortunate Padres sympathizer. Close relatives and clones are two distinct relationships; you are fantastically justified in your reluctance to be the latter with respect to ol’ qb’s ideologies. Take heart.
Look, I’ve got Claiborne on my bookshelf and was suitably impressed by his work in _Irresistable Revolution_ or whatever the title was. (It’s up there on the read-once level with McManus, whereas Hirsch and Frost reside on the read-a-couple-of-times shelf. He’s good, but not great.) In any case, I don’t have any objection to him speaking his opinions or any such thing. Where I find him smug and insufferable is in his presumption that he can apologize on behalf of Christians generally. It’s not that he has no right to do so; it’s just that it’s arrogant, self-righteous, and probably ineffective as far as the apology itself goes. Apologies that are so diffuse, so generic, and so distant from first-person responsibility aren’t worth the TP they’re printed on; they amount to so much nest-feathering and preening to burnish an image, even if the underlying realities aren’t changed all that much.
Much love from a Rockies symp,
qb
Let me put it this way, Kathy: Claiborne is a great Kingdom asset. He’s at his best when he’s speaking TO us, not FOR us. qb
Ah! A Padres fair weather devotee – swinging over to the almost winners Rockies – I thought better of you, qb my friend!
Having lived on Mars for 30 years, it could be I’d not been subjected to the heating of the water on the frog, so Claiborne was a wonderful surprise for me. He also may be responsible for my acceptance and joyful reading of Francis Chan’sCrazy Love. It’s doubtful I would have been able to accept Chan’s thoughts had I not read Claiborne after my return to earth.
I appreciate your insights too.
At the risk of restarting the debate on the apology front – as someone who barely believes/maybe doesn’t believe – an apology about the behavior of brother and sister christians when specifically addresing non-believers is practically necessary to start a genuine conversation with the non-believer under 40. In my opinion, the damage done to the reputation of the Church and the perception of what is means to be a member of the contemporary Church by the behavior of high profile christian politicans and churches in the last 10-15 years cannot be understated. SC’s apology at least acknowledges what many people experience of the church and in my opinion, that acknowledgment makes room for the reader to continue reading what SC has to say instead of just writing him off as more of the same.
Then let him repudiate what he disagrees with, Deb, and in the strongest rhetoric he can muster! There is no shortage of authors who have done just that. But he does not have standing to apologize for others, especially if they would not apologize themselves if given the chance.
A third-person apology is a transparent attempt to spoof an intensity of regret that does not exist within those on whose behalf the apology is offered. Such an apology demeans Claiborne in the act of extending it, and it erodes the dignity of those victims who would fall for it. It also sets up an inevitable, cruel disillusionment; an apology creates the expectation of changed attitudes and behaviors, and Claiborne has no power to bring those about among the perps. He therefore should not presume to create the expectation in the first place.
We *must* abandon this kind of rhetorical sleight of hand. Let those apologize who have come to the piont of conviction and repentance so that the whole idea of an apology is not emptied of its deep meaning and import. Apologies can be powerful tools for reconciliation, but only if they carry their freight with unassailable sincerity, substantive content, and actual STANDING.
qb
Mike, Excellent discussion you started again.
My orginal reaction was like qb.
Personal honesty and genuine changed behavior toward persons we know under 40 who blame their rejection of Jesus’ followers will not be overcome with sleight of hand apologizing to the Esquire crowd who in general are ashamed of Jesus’ words. We are not. At the same time, I’m an old bird preacher living in Denver who resonates with Paul’s view of himself, “worst of sinners”. Plenty of stuff for me to apologize to my children and grandchildren and wife about, laziness, cowardice, fear, and more I can’t confess here. But that should be personal to them in the context of “I was wrong. I’m sorry. Please forgive me.” “Wash me and I will be whiter then snow.” “Then transgressors will be taught.”
I love and appreciate all the young and old radical prophets and writers like Claiborne and His “firebrand types”. Just don’t use apology for us. We got burned out during Bill Clinton’s apology for mistreatment of people groups while he was using and abusing a young intern.
Thanks again Mike for your incredible though provoking blog used by all us all over the world.
Thanks to qb for saying with depth and eloquence words that fit my heart.
qb – I don’t feel as strongly about the rhetorical vehicle of an apology that SC used as you. I agree, an outright repudiation would be more forthright. My primary point is not whether he has standing to apologize on behalf of others (I’m fine with your analysis that he doesn’t). I respectfully disagree that the vehicle of apology as a way of him saying – “I don’t agree with that interpretation of christianity and I feel deeply agrieved by it” is ineffective. In my opinion, it may very well be effective for *beginning* a conversation with non-believers.
I think the folks reading his material are very well aware he can’t deliver changed behavior by others and that it is a rhetorical vehicle and not an actual putting to rights. I also am betting that ther eaders know that it is what you say it is: a rhetorical sleight of hand – but I think they appreciate the gesture. It’s an opening to have more conversation – the beginning of building trust. Perhaps he is doing that at the expense of his brothers and sisters and perhaps that is wrong. I don’t have a clue about that one.
I do easily, of course,see how his words sound smug and arrogant and self-righteous to some. I can also see how his words make it possible for some non-believers to listen more closely to those who believe.
With respect –
Deb
Kevin DeYoung (one of the authors of Why We’re Not Emergent…) has a different perspective that Shaine Claiborne. Of course, the CofC in general doesn’t care much for Reformed Theology, but it is interesting to know what the other side is thinking. The piece (excerpt below) was posted on November 24, 2009 at Justin Taylor’s blog, – Between Two Worlds – it can be found at this web site:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/
This is an outstanding piece by Kevin DeYoung in response to a letter to unbelievers, written by Shaine Claiborne and published in Esquire.
Kevin explains that this increasingly popular “new gospel” usually has four parts: (1) it starts with an apology; (2) it appeals to God as love; (3) it invites others to join God on his mission; (4) it is ambivalent about eternity.
Why is it so popular? (1) it’s partially true; (2) it deals with strawmen; (3) it leads people to believe wrong things without explicitly stating those wrong things [this is Kevin's most important paragraph, I think]; (4) it’s manageable; (5) it’s inspirational; (6) it’s non-offensive.
Kevin goes on to deal with a number of objections. I know Claiborne would say what he wrote is just pre-evangelism, but I think Kevin’s points are spot on and well worth considering carefully. I encourage you to read the whole thing.
thanks for this posting, Mike. I’m fascinated to read the way this guy provokes response. Forget his book, just read the way people respond to him – amazing.
If y’all enjoy people’s reactions as much as I do, look up his book on Amazon and read the reviews and comments on reviews. amazing stuff in our “christian” world.
I wonder how Jesus wants us to respond … or even IF he wants us to respond.
You may yet be right, Deb, and though qb’s not persuaded to abandon his admittedly cynical posture towards Claiborne et al, you make a fantastic dialogue partner. May your generous tribe increase. Affectionately, qb