I just finished reading Jesus For President.
It’s not for me. As I have said, Claiborne has many important things to say, but I seriously doubt his theology of ‘let’s do all we can to get arrested all the time by making a public nuisance of ourselves by trespassing, interrupting the lives of others, and embarrassing themselves.’ I think that sort of contradicts Paul’s statement that we should ‘pray for kings, and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth‘ (not just the poor and disenfranchised; 1 Timothy 2:2).
It may be for some of you, and I’m glad for you. But I seriously, seriously doubt that Jesus’ main motivation was every merely political. I had a professor at Emmanuel School of Religion try to make the argument that Jesus was saying something political. To be sure, he did. But I also think it was more. And Jesus does not need to run for president, nor do we need to vote for him; He’s already King. (I’d appreciate the book far more, I’d still disagree with much of the theology, if they didn’t lean so far to the Left as if the Left has anything better to say than the Right.)
So, Irony:
A couple of years ago, two things happened. First, we won a lawsuit over police misconduct in New York City. The police had been arresting homeless people for sleeping in public, and charging them with disorderly conduct. Hundreds of folks rallied to bring attention to this situation, and many of us slept outside to express our feeling that it shouldn’t be a crime to sleep in public. I (Shane) was arrested one night as I slept. Through a long legal process, I was found not guilty, and then I filed a civil suit of wrongful arrest, wrongful prosecution, and police misconduct. And we won, in addition to a legal precedent, around ten thousand dollars. But we figured the money didn’t belong to me or to the Simple Way but to the homeless for all they endure. It was their victory.
The second thing that happened was that after our study of Biblical economics, we were given an anonymous gift of ten thousand dollars, money which had been invested in the stock market and now was being returned to the poor.
I don’t know. Something about all this strikes me as profoundly ironic. It’s like: We hate the system, but by God we are going to use (abuse?) it when we can. I don’t get it. I don’t think it is courageous. Nor do I think there is such a thing as ‘prophetic resistance to corporate interests’ pillaging of the rain forests’ in Brazil; nor does that make one a Biblical martyr.
Perhaps it will make some of you say, “You just don’t know Shane,” or “You read him wrongly,” or “Did you fall out of a stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down?” or worse. That’s fine. His is a way of reading Scripture that is nice, but leaves a lot to be desired. Maybe I need another of his books (more irony) to flesh out where he’s coming from. Maybe I need to visit him and have a tofu burger and some green tea. But for the time being, I need to mull it over and listen to you a little more.
Or…
347 Comments(+Add)
Jerry – Is there any instances in Scripture (or church history) where believers were persecuted for helping the poor? And as believers, is our calling primarily, and sometimes with men like Claiborne almost exclusively, to tether ourselves to the political and social injustices of the poor?
It all seems so “Christless”.
Jesus is not “merely” political, he was and is political. The gospel is nothing if it is not political, Jerry. But perhaps your definition of “political” is too narrow?
It don’t find the scenario of the fight for the homeless ironic at all. I read it as non-violent resistance against the “powers and principalities” that are fallen, and using them instead for redemptive purposes. That should be one of our primary tasks as Christians: To discern the “powers” and use them in such a way befitting of Christ and his Kingdom. The “system” can be used for ill or it can be used for good. Shane is attempting to use it for good.
The sermon on the mount is a perfect case of this non-violent resistance at work. If you haven’t read Wink’s work on this, you should. Jesus is using the “system” of the day, the way the rules work, to expose the system for what it is and bring the powers in line with the mandate of Christ.
Jerry,
Couldn’t an argument be made that Paul had a sort of love/hate relationship with the Roman government as well? He was basically traveling around parts of the Empire saying some pretty subversive things (although I will grant that people like John Dominic Crossan tend to overstate the political nature of this), and when he was brought before Festus he appealed to Caesar. In a way, it could be argued that Paul’s legal problems were because of his tensions with the Jews more than Rome itself, although, there are definitely parts of his epistles where seems to have his targets directly set on Caesar.
There is a sort of tension that flows throughout the Biblical narrative, that I guess it wouldn’t be wrong to call irony. Even in Genesis (which was written by Moses during, remember) there’s this narrative describing Joseph’s rise to political power within Egypt – the very nation that the Jews had just been rescued from. So even back then it’s like God is trying to get some point across to the Jews about being in the world but not of it.
I guess I’m not really surprised that you find Claiborne frustrating. I am maybe surprised at severity of the reaction. He seems to have gotten under your skin quite a bit for some reason.
“there are definitely parts of his epistles where seems to have his targets directly set on Caesar.”
Phil – Which parts are you referencing?
Well, there are several that I could point to. The whole book of Colossians is pretty explicitly anti-Empire. Colossians 1:15-20 is describing Christ in terms that echo descriptions of Caesar from the same era.
Also in Colossians 2, Paul talks of Christ disarming the powers and making a public spectacle of them. The term “powers” is sort of an all encompassing terms that would include not only spiritual forces of evil, but also worldly systems (actually a good argument can be made that Paul probably didn’t see much a difference between the two).
In 1 Thessalonians, when Paul describes the return of Christ, he practically mimicking descriptions of Caesar’s entrance into a town. Paul goes out of his way many times to get the point across that Christ is Lord, not Caesar. In fact even the term “Lord” is a title that was generally reserved for Caesar in the Roman provinces.
These are teachings that use earthly constructs to show spiritual superiority, but Paul was never caught up with confronting the Roman government. And Paul’s “I was born a Roman” was not to create moral legislation or even change the government. It was for Paul to go to Rome according to the will of God and the gospel.
Well, there’s direct confrontation and then there’s subversive confrontation. Paul did not go out and try to get arrested. He wasn’t trying to be a nuisance (although, it certainly seemed he was to many people). But he certainly was undermining the Empire’s authority.
That was pretty much my point. He wasn’t so much trying to stand up for his rights, as he was claiming certain rights that he was entitled to as a Roman citizen for the sake of the Gospel. It actually seems like his main goal in appealing to Caesar was to proclaim and demonstrate the Gospel to Caesar.
Phil
Number seven…I don’t think that is claibornes point at all.
jerry
Chad
That’s not the irony.
Jerry
I wasn’t saying it was…
I was just responding to Rick’s comment.
I’m unconvinced this is terribly ironic… I think it may be painting with a broad brush to say Claiborne hates “the system” but wishes to use it.
It’s more like, Claiborne hates the fact that being homeless is a crime (which he thinks reflects the world’s values) and will use the system, even legal means, to stop the harassment of homeless individuals.
Makes sense to me.
Jerry,
My biggest beef with Shane was his social activism (protests and such). It did grate on me some to read his praise of the two retired nuns attacking the public property (you mentioned it in another thread).
And as for using the bad system for his good; kind of reminds me of the book I’m currently reading about the Mormon church (Under the Banner of Heaven) where many of the LDS (mostly fundies anymore) take advantage of the welfare system (many fraudulently) as a way of “bleeding the beast”.
#12
That’s not to say that I didn’t glean much from his writings. It certainly challenged me.
After further review, my view of pacifism and a-nationalism is different than Claibornes. My view of Christianity is non-confrontational with the government, and any advantages would be clearly consequencial and not by design. There also is a great danger as painting oneself as a martyr for the poor and everyone who does not employ your methods as less than bold and Biblical.
We must guard against mirroring the anti-war movements. I also have yet to hear from Jerry’s reviews any mention of the gospel and personal regeneration for the sinners who happen to be poor. I have preached several times at The NYC Bowery Mission and they are not satisfied with just soup, they give them the gospel as well.
So this whittles your list of acceptable ministries down to something like, oh say…two now, Rick?
You estimation is inflated.
MG, Chad,
The best way to solve the problem of homelessness is not to create more homeless people, but to create homes. Not once in Claiborne’s account does he say, “So we took the money that was given to us and we put a homeless guy up in an apartment for ayear. That is a much better solution that simply throwing the money around Wall Street.
And even that is not the irony. The irony is that he accepted money that was earned by using the Stock Exchange. I can think of no bigger beast in the world, that profits off the backs of the poor, minorities, and children, than the Stock Exchange.
I’m sorry, that is not only disingenous of Claiborne, but to an extent, undoes his entire argument. I disagree strongly that one can rail against something as much as he does (and he rails quite a lot about money in this book) and then turn around and sue someone or accept money earned in the market–the very market he despises.
I have no problem helping the poor and the homeless. But when I do, I don’t need to brag about it. Furthermore, I don’t help them just because I identify with them. I help then when I give them a bed or a home or help them get a job or medical care, etc.
Even the early church did that. But tell me how sleeping on a sidewalk, going to court, gives a homeless person a bed? All it does is win the right for the homeless person to stay homeless and continue sleeping on the sidewalk. Sorry, MG & Chad, that is not help.
Some actually call it co-dependant.
jerry
“Some actually call it co-dependant.”
Or publicity.
#5:
Phil, to somehow equate Paul’s letter to the Colossians as an undermining message of the Roman Empire is very far-fetched. Then to say that Paul was painting a picture (using his own imagination, I suppose?) when he described Christ’s return is even further off the mark.
Paul had little to no concern about the Roman Empire at all. If you weigh his writings how much time was spent, if any at all, about railing on the Empire, even in subtle ways? Instead, he tells people to live quiet and peaceful lives (pay taxes, be good citizens) with the over-arching goal being the glory of Jesus Christ.
Perhaps Mr. Claiborne fits more in the camp of the zealots than the disciples? It’s the wrong enemy being fought against.
It’s like the US in Afghanistan. Not to say that poverty should not be addressed by churches, but it is not the overarching battle.
I kind of hear what you’re saying, but it seems to me that the story you posted isn’t really about answering the question of how to ensure homeless people have homes, but it was rather an effort to have the anti-vagrancy law changed that made it illegal for homeless people to sleep on the streets. I understand the intention of the law in this case, but I have to admit that even being the coldhearted libertarian that I am, I find it a bit harsh to fine imprison someone for being homeless.
I think Claiborne’s first book, which is quite a bit longer than JFP, presents his ministry and life in a bit different light than JFP. Although, I’m sure there’s plenty you would disagree with there as well.
It’s not far fetched at all. It’s pretty much just accepted as fact by NT scholars. There is discussion as to the degree how much Paul was anti-Empire, but I don’t see how you can so easily dismiss what’s written. Paul was writing to churches in the heart of the Empire.
He’s not “railing” against the Empire in the sense that he has a list of injustices that they are propagating. But by telling his reader to serve Jesus as Lord, He is inherently telling to disobey/dishonor Ceasar. Remember, a good Roman citizen declared “Caesar is Lord”. No man can serve two masters.
Is railing against the empire like the modern day rage against the machine?
Or better yet, go out and find a homeless guy and bring him back to your house for 3 hots and a cot. And you don’t even have to tell anybody about it.
I know Jesus has a lot of titles but calling him a “politician” is pretty close to blasphemy in my opinion.
Just read a commentary introducing the book of Colossians… it’s pretty straightforward and aligns with the epistle itself. There were false teachings being introduced to the church originally planted by Epaphras and there was a danger of people being swayed.
Paul’s emphasis on the overarching power and glory of Christ is a direct address to this, not Caesar at all.
No he is not Phil. He speaks in several instances of being good citizens, living peacefully and so on. Of course, the Heavenly King was to be acknowledged above all, but this is the simple truth of the gospel. Not intended to be subversive.
I think there’s a little over-analysis happening here.
Brett, you haven’t met Chad yet?
#23 – It’s comments like these that almost make me a Roman Catholic.
You think ???
Not really. It’s just good socio-rhetorical analysis.
Getting back to 1 Thessalonians, Ben Witherington III gives a brief explanation in his book, The Problem With Evangelical Theology (that link will take you to the Google books preview, which pretty much has the whole book, but I can’t copy and paste from it. Look at page 118-123, it talks about this as well as Paul general opposition to Caesar.
I think part of the problem with the way many Christians read the Bible is that we start with the question, “what does this mean to me?”, rather than just “what does this mean?”. In our individualistic, modernistic society, we’re absolutely shocked to find out that it might not be about us.
#28: Phil – here’s the problem.
You’re basically saying that Paul pulled the coming triumphal return of Christ out of his butt in order to somehow stick it to the Roman Empire. “I’ll show those Romans!” as he scratches furiously on the papyrus scroll.
Sorry – that’s very sad and very poor (plus it ignores other scriptures that validate Christ’s return in a similar way).
So, the problem here, before we go anywhere else, is that you have basically neutered the truth and power of scripture.
I think that happened yesterday as well when you claimed that personal salvation was a sort of side dish, nice-t0-have.
I don’t know how you draw that conclusion, honestly. I’m not saying Paul pulled anything out of his butt. I’m saying he’s using language that his readers would understand to describe Christ’s return. He speaking in metaphor, which is simply how humans always speak, whether we realize it or not. Paul’s metaphorical frame of reference was the culture of the 1st century Mediterranean peninsula which was under Roman rule. Our frame of reference is 21st Century America (or Canada, I suppose in your case). Those frames of reference our simply different. I’m not saying that what Paul said wasn’t inspired or doubting the truth of Scripture at all. All I’m saying is that we shouldn’t approach Scripture so flippantly.
I also kill puppies and kick babies…
Seriously, if you’re going to throw false accusations at me, you might as well take them all the way.
Here’s the thing. I’ll quote from the single verse you are referring to to make your point:
What in that language would be helpful to the people of that day that would not be helpful to others elsewhere. Again, I think this is a case of reading too much into things. Anyone, from any country, from any period would be able to grasp this. The point is that he didn’t need to “parabolize” anything here.
I don’t disagree with metaphor being an effective way to communicate, but now we’re going from one discussion (that Paul was somehow taking shots, however subtlely against the Roman Empire) to another altogether.
Sorry Phil. I’m not trying to falsely accuse you at all. Where do you get that?
Paul – Just a bit of support for Phil, here (since what you seem to have a problem with is cultural analysis – treating culture as if it were something independent of message).
If Paul were writing about Jesus today, and he might say”
Jesus is the only source of hope, and the only true change you need in your life.
I’d bet if you read that 100 years from now, you would get the basic message of it, but you would miss that it was also a fairly pointed slam at 21st century political idolatry…
There are two things at play here. The first is Paul using imagery from the book of Daniel where it refers to the “Coming of the Son of Man”. “Descending from heaven” is a way to describe Christ coming from God’s presence more than a physical description of Him floating down from the sky.
The second thing at play is the whole triumphal entry motif, which harkens to a ruler or general entering a city either for a royal visit or after a great military victory.
Also, the main point Paul is getting at is more to the fact that the saints who have already died in Thessalonica will indeed take part in the Resurrection when it occurs. They will not miss out on Christ’s return.
I never “claimed that personal salvation was a sort of side dish, nice-t0-have.” I said that the individual, death avoidance aspect of salvation was not the primary way salvation was thought about in the OT and NT.
Chris, I don’t have a problem with with the fact that in a lot of cases, especially the OT, but also the NT, there were things written that applied then and perhaps don’t apply now.
I’m not arguing against that.
What I was arguing against is the fact that in the instances Phil pointed to (Colossians and 1 Thessalonians 4) that Paul was not trying to “compete” with Rome or somehow try to subvert Rome. There were far more troubling and undermining influences at play that he was defending against.
Did he use allegory at times? Sure, like in the case of the “whole armour of God” but to make the leap that he was writing in code to subvert the Roman Empire (remember the topic of this post), then we’ve left the reservation.
In fact, what strikes me is that in the book of Acts, all of Paul’s writings and those of the other NT writers, they saw the far more dangerous enemy being spiritual than they cared about Rome. That should be our stance as well. Obey the laws, pay your taxes and be good citizens, live peacefully, yet be the light and live the life God has called to as citizens of heaven.
Not one person was arguing about hell/death avoidance yesterday. That was the “false dichotomy” I mentioned. But this is what you said:
Anyways, sorry for dredging up yesterday’s discussion…
I disagree with Paul trying to paint motifs and the like. He was declaring what the return of the King of kings might be like. It coincides with other verses in the Bible as well – which weren’t under the oppression of Rome. Could it be that it simply outlines what might actually happen to some degree?
It wasn’t that cut and dry. In Paul’s worldview – a 1st Century Jew turned Christian who happened to be a Roman citizen – every earthly power had a spiritual power behind it. So when Caesar proclaimed himself Lord, it was not simply that act of a prideful human being. It was in essence the act of spiritual forces setting themselves up against the true Lordship of Jesus Christ. So that is why he is so adamant that all powers “visible and invisible” were created by Him, were made a spectacle by Him on the cross, and will day be made subject to Him.
This, of course, is telling people not to intentionally bring trouble on themselves. It also is telling the reader not to engage in an armed revolt. Paul is clear, though, that our allegiance can only be to one Lord.
Look – Even referring toJesus as King or Prince or Lord are political words. They are meant to help in understanding, but they in no way imply Jesus was a political figure ior was suggesting political involvment.
When He is the Rose of Sharon that doesn’t invite people to botony.
I’m not saying he isn’t describing what will actually happen, but rather our interpretation of his description will be incorrect if we do not pick up the correct cultural and linguistic cues.
It happens all the time today even in rather simple things. If you spend enough time around people from a different culture, it doesn’t take long before you mention an idiom or expression that is foreign to them. They understand the individual words, but they don’t understand the meaning. Even something relatively simple, such as talking about the football game you watched last night can lead to a potential miscommunication. If that happens now for people living on earth at the same time as us, why would we be surprised if it happened when reading something written by people who lived thousands of years ago? It seems like it would be more surprising if it didn’t happen.
Not only Paul, but the entire course of scripture. We obey human authority insomuch that it doesn’t tread on our true allegiance to God. At least that’s how it should be.
Again, this is not just Paul’s view. This is the truth and can be traced throughout the entire OT and NT.
And as such, there was more insistence that the battle be spiritual, not carnal or fleshly.
Phil, these are more the fancies of someone who has the luxury of an Internet connection (for example, your Daniel 7 reference), Bible software and a few hundred books.
I am not anti-intellectual, but I fear too much learning can indeed make a man mad, and add nothing to him spiritually at times. Not always, but often.
I am struggling to understand how my small church located deep in the bush in Kenya would not grasp the triumphal entry of Christ if 1 Thess 4 was preached to them, as much as you – without all their bible resources.
And the fact you took Colossians out of context, claiming it was a dissertation directed at Rome when it was in fact dealing with false religion, illustrates the perils of relying on (faulty) sources and scholars.
Just read a poem in our Preacing to Powers and Principalities class that I thought worth sharing. It is a poem about true events in 2007. It is about non-violent, active resistance to a KKK march in Knoxville, TN.
This poem, I think, captures the sort of creativity Clairborne and others who are often viewed as being on the “left” or as “pacifists” are calling for in the Church. IOW, the best way to counter violence is not with more violence (the myth of redemptive violence) and the way you counter hate is not with more hate.
Enjoy this awesome, provoking poem:
The Flour Poem
I don’t know… I actually think that the whole narrative becomes much simpler when you look at this way. You want complicated, let me dig out some of the charts and graphs with arrows indicating who would attack whom, who would ascend when, who would descend, etc… I really think that the Dispensationalist version is much more complicated and confusing.
Also, I don’t think that just because someone is rural hasn’t been exposed to the same resources mean he or she is stupid. You may be surprised at what people understand. I actually have found that people not from the Western countries have a better inherent understanding of the Scripture than we do. They understand what it is like to be oppressed, to live in true poverty, and to truly not know where their next mean will come from. They are a lot closer to the original readers of Scripture than we are in many ways.
LOL… yeah, BWIII and N.T. Wright are totally unreliable and faulty… Whatever, man…
I was thinking about this, too, regarding Claiborne. The thing is, Claiborne was basically protesting against the government in the city of Philadelphia. To say that Philly leans a little left is like saying North Korea is a little bit communist. Philly is probably further left than NYC now, and it’s been a Democrat stronghold for years.
I guess Claiborne could be saying the city isn’t left enough…
Seriously, though, from reading his first book, I don’t think Claiborne is quite that naive. I think he realizes that Democrat politicians often just pay lip service to whole homeless and poor issue, and I think he’s trying to hold their feet to the fire a bit. The local politics at play in Philly are probably just a little less corrupt than Chicago.
Left/right – who cares.
Or it was a PR stunt.
Not sure about US cities, but here in Toronto, for example, tons of resources are put into providing shelter to the homeless, especially during the winter. People actually go out en-masse to try and convince homeless people to come inside to a shelter and a hot meal. Some do, but a whole lot refuse. The truth is that many suffer from mental problems, with homelessness being a result. But the city provides a means for these people to a certain degree.
I’ve also traveled to several US cities (like San Fran) where the amount of resources poured into homelessness is astounding.
That being said, Brett’s suggestion was probably the most Christ-like of all – and all without the fanfare, trumpet-blowing and broadcasting.
Chad,
I got nothing against non-violent resistance, but I don’t know if the KKK was perpetrating much violence in 2007.
I my opinion we may have been better off if the “good Christians” in the South (who read their bibles and went to church on Sundays) would have used a little more legitimate “active violence” against the KKK during the 20th century. Instead of cowardly allowing fellow human beings, to be brutalized, and dehumanized.
“All that is necessary fro evil men to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
GandhiEveryone but Gandhi#46: this Catholic’s got game!
Forget Jesus for President – I’m for Brett!
Classic!
No offense Chad, but how far, do you suppose, those clowns might have gotten in the 1950s?
Marching against the KKK in the 21st century is like arranging a protest against the Flat Earth Society.
To ask the question “what would the clowns have gotten in the 1950’s” is, bluntly, a stupid question.
We aren’t in the 1950’s. We are in the 21st century. Resisting today looks different than it would then. But violence need not be the answer then nor now.
The point is that in every time and in every place there is a call to be imaginative. What works today won’t necessarily work 50 years from now and vice versa.
Says who?
I’m a moderately intelligent guy that has certain creative gifts, and I have a great appreciation for imagination.
But Scriptures doesn’t call everyone to be imaginative; Christ calls us all to be holy.
Why do you assume that being holy and being imaginative are mutually exclusive?
Chad,
Don’t get me started on some of the stupid ideas my imagination has come up with over the years
All of us use our imaginations. But they must be guided by Scripture, primarily to illuminate the truth we already know. But when your illumination is complete, compare it with Scripture again.
I imagine that would help.
There is no doubt that Jesus was for the poor…
But it was the poor in Spirit, the humble ones who were contrite of heart.
This includes the rich, the government officials, the Kings, the religious leaders, the blind, the maimed, and those who were in full health.
There are many who look down their nose at you for ministering to those who are in your circle of influence, which may be middle class white rich suburbanites. There are those who look down at those who warn College students by preaching on the campuses. We should minister to whomever the Lord places in our path, without reservation and without preference. Shane Claibourne is unique to be sure, but he does not have the corner on ministry just because he ministers to that segment.
And certainly, if He does not present the glorious gospel of salvation in Christ alone, he is a clanging gong and a social service agency in the same vein as Oprah.
It concerns me greatly that the gospel of Jesus Christ seems almost absent from some of these ministries, and it also concerns me greatly that it doesn’t concern others greatly.
Feed a man’s stomach and he’ll live longer; feed a man’s spirit and he”l live forever.
Brett,
What I mean by #52 is that if we contend that being “holy” means at least in large part embodying the teachings of Christ, and if we take the teachings of Christ to be in part non-violence, than of course we must be imaginative in how we live that out in each of our contexts.
So to truly be holy would mean we must exercise our imaginations. Sadly, many of us in the Church have atrophied imaginations – we no longer truly believe that the Spirit is alive and well and leading us into truth.
I should add: Jesus did not just teach non-violence but non-violent resistance. It’s an unmasking of the fallen powers at work and a call to repent. Jesus does this time and time again and teaches his disciples to do the same. We need to use our imaginations to resist the forces of evil that are very much at work (like the resistance to the KKK that the poem illustrates).
Rick,
Here’s the statement of faith/commitments for The Simple Way (Claiborne’s ministry). Jesus’ death and resurrection is there, fallenness of humanity is there, the need for personal evangelism and personal faith in Christ is there.
http://thesimpleway.org/PSC/community/commitments.html
PB, you’ll like this from his site (especially the last sentence):
“We recognize the mystery of love. Ultimately, our mission is to love — to love God and to love people. This is the greatest commandment, embodying God’s law. All sin stems from not loving God or not loving people. Loving God and loving people are intricately connected and utterly inseparable. We also acknowledge that pure love is God. The greatest act of love is introducing someone to Love, in the person of Jesus.”
I think showing up to protest or ‘imaginatively resist’ the kkk is a waste of time.
I think ignoring them is a more powerful statement than showing up to ‘creatively resist.’
You can’t contradict silence.
A “waste of time”? Seriously?
And yet, I suppose you don’t think going in with guns and bombs is a “waste of time.” Would it have been better if people just “ignored” Hitler?
Being silent is to be complicit. Christians are called to speak out against the evil in the world. Our love is not a passive, silent love but an active one. Or at least it should be.
I’m surprised by you, Jerry. Your political leanings seem to have really colored your theological lens.
I’m still shocked that anyone would suggest that “silence” is the best way to deal with evil like the KKK. It’s like telling MLK, “Hey, you guys need to just shut up and quit complaining about stuff like lynching. I mean, you can’t contradict yourself if you just go along and zip your lip. Silence is far more powerful.”
Guess what, Jerry? The bulk of the Church took your advice and remained “silent” as millions of slaves were being brought over from Africa or while blacks were (and ARE) still being enslaved in various other ways.
Hey, let’s just be silent in the face of abortion. Let’s just be silent in the face of poverty, famine, homelessness. Let’s just be silent as governments perpetuate 3rd world debt or prolong patents that prevent sufferers of HIV in Africa from getting the life-saving meds they need.
And when the KKK shows up to rally in your town, just shut up.
Brilliant advice.
I do not advocate silence. I support a campaig on Christ’s loe throught the same town on the same day and encouraging people not to go to the KKK parade.
Or – I suggest every believer in town show up to the parade, hand out drinks and snacks to the KKK members along the way, and pray for them out loud as they pass that they would open their hearts to Jesus.
Protests are unproductive and usually fulfills some need to vent against whatever you are protesting against. Jesus was a revolutionary whose methods would never have been employed by others. The church needs to build upon His model and IMAGINE a better and more demonstrative way to share Christ’s love then protesting.
We as believers are called to confront evil with redemption. The church must not construct good verses evil forums and suggest people take sides. Disney has a “gay day” and some denominations suggested a boycott of Disney. What redemption is there in that?
We are not called to combat immorality; we are called to redemption which is the highest calling. So often the church has come against hate by criticizing hate but without sacrificially showing love that should be more powerful than hate.
It was not uncommon for heathens to believe on Christ because of the humility and forgiveness exhibited by martyrs as they approached their death. Instead of claiming their rights or castigating their executioners they prayed for them and died victorious in Jesus Christ.
We are epistles, not petitions.
Chad,
And I’m surprised that you, who know me, are falling so heavily on the ‘Jerry just doesn’t get it’ mode of debate.
“And like a Lamb before his shearers is silent…”
jerrry
But to your point, if violence cannot defeat violence, then I don’t suppose protests will defeat protests.
It’s not that my political points of view have colored my theological lenses as much as it is that my theological views have colored my political lenses.
It’s only in America, where you and I have the so-called ‘right’ to protest and speak, that such things as protests and voices seem to matter. So, Chad, take your theological lenses and go someplace where people are really, truly oppressed and raise your voice in opposition.
Seriously. Because here in America, it isn’t really a challenge or a theological coup to protest a kkk rally. it takes more to ignore them. acknowledging their existence is to empower them. To ignore them is to defeat them.
And, Chad, there are plenty of ‘white’ people who are enslaved too. They are all over the place. They are children. They are women. They are young men.
Slavery is a condition of humanity not just black Americans. When are you going to realize my friend that you are not the only person in the world who cares about people and that just because your priorities are not mine does not make me a theological wuss or a racial hater?
I’m glad you are interested in helping end slavery. Good for you. But so am I. That’s why I’m reworking my educational prerogatives so that I can work with the disabled and those with mental retardation and with AD/HD in the inner cities of Cleveland. So please spare me the bullshit about how lousy all of us are or how theologically inept we are because you seem to care more. So you adopt black children from Africa, and I’ll adopt autistic kids from Cleveland and we’ll call it quits ok?
You advocate for those who don’t, and I’ll advocate for those who can’t. And in the end, it will be Jesus who is glorified; not me, not you, not america, not a race. But Jesus.
I love you Chad. I really do. But you are going to have to wake up and realize, soon, that just because we don’t think the same way doesn’t mean we are somehow better or worse than one another. I value what you contribute here, but you really, seriously, need to lighten up a bit. This is no way for two Steeler’s fans to treat one another.
Check out this.
I actually understand your point about the KKK, Jerry. I think by now, they are such a marginalized group that they would relish any type of attention they could get.
I also hear what you’re saying about protests in general – I don’t necessarily think they the best way to bring about change. The culture in the US is simply not the same as it was in the ’60’s and ’70’s. Being on a big campus, I kind of get the idea that the quickest way for a student group to make itself irrelevant is plan some sort of march or protest. They might as well be saying “please ignore me!”. These sort of things just don’t have the impact that they did 40-50 years ago. Perhaps it’s a symptom of our mass self-absorption, or our short attention spans (hey, that squirrel has a fuzz tail!).
So I definitely don’t think what Claiborne advocate should really be seen a model (obviously, I still work an office job and don’t make my own clothes), but I still won’t condemn him for what he does. I do think that as Christians we all have to examine our lives in light of Scripture and what the Holy Spirit is convicting us to do, and I don’t think it will be the same for everyone.
Wow.
I’m sorry, Jerry, but you are being hypocritical.
The real irony here is that on a site dedicated to speaking out against “evil” as perceived in the church (Ingrid, Ken, etc) you would suggest that silence is the best way to combat an evil as insidious as the KKK. If you really believe silence is the best avenue than why do you blog? Why are you a writer here?
What’s ironic as well is that so long as it is something that you perceive as truly evil you have no problem protesting. If there is a threat to your right to own guns or if the government seeks to make a public option in health care or if you fear that your taxes might go up a bit so that some of the have-nots (people Chris L compassionately labels “moochers”) might have, you are anything but silent. Did you tell the “tea-baggers” that their rally was nonsense and that they should just stay home? Am I to conclude that perhaps you just don’t think the KKK is evil? Perhaps they have a platform we should give an ear to?
To be silent in the face of evil is to condone it. What sort of message are you sending to the black community who have wounds that run deeper than you and I as white men can even imagine when you sit silent when something like the KKK visits your town? You might as well go ahead and don a white hood. Given the past discussions we have had around here revolving around race it would not surprise me if several writers here wouldn’t need to borrow one.
Phil,
Which is exactly why I began this post by saying, “It’s not for me.”
I think God can and does and will use all of us in the place he has called us. You are called to campus ministry…i couldn’t do that. John is called to open air preaching…i probably wouldn’t do that. Chris is called to the corporate world…not on your life. I’m called to kids…and i never wanted to be a youth minister. Claiborne is called to whatever it is he does…and i’m glad he is. Chad is called to the south…which I don’t have a particular call to. I have a friend who loves Africa and has a heart for missions work….i’m afraid to fly.
But God has not called everyone to that place in life. He has called us to where we are and we’re not all the same.
I think Paul made these sort of assertions in his letters to the Corinthians…some are called to marriage, some are not; etc.
But that’s just the point and proves that it has more to do with God than us.
jerry
Chad,
jerry
Oh, go jump in a lake, Chad…
I can assure you that none of the writers are racist.
I actually think that many of our Black brothers and sisters are quite tired of being treated as a cause, and they are really tired of people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson being trotted out as their de facto representatives. What they really want is for us to simply treat as our brothers and sisters. In other words, just love them. Actually get in their lives.
It’s actually quite easy for me to support a political cause that I might think is good for the black community. It’s a lot harder for me to invite a black family over for dinner.
St. Paul, after talking about the “struggle” we are up against the “cosmic powers of this present darkness” and the armor we are to wear as we “stand firm” against it, asks that the church pray that he may declare the gospel boldly, “as I must speak.” (Eph. 6:10-20).
Silence is not an option for Christians. Not when we see evil. Preaching, at it’s best, is a form of non-violent resistance. It’s naming and speaking against the darkness of this present age and pointing to the gospel – the truth. You can not do this by just sitting on your hands and saying nothing.
That is one of the most unchristian things ever written here, and to put it in perspective, neither Ken or Ingrid would have ever suggested such a thing. You are a profoundly self righteous and judgmental man. Profoundly…
Phil – there is a big difference between treating our black brothers and sisters as a “cause” or something to be fixed (I agree with you there) and speaking out against something like the KKK when it comes to town. The former is nothing but charity or showing pity whereas the latter is showing solidarity as well as, in a sense, being confessional (if you are white).
Rick – sometimes truth stings.
Once again:
“As a Lamb before his shearers is silent…”
#78- what does that have to do with anything? You are going to use that as a proof-text to justify silence in the face of evil? Really?
The difference is you are not being crucified. You are not a martyr. Jesus’ silence in the face of his crucifixion is his loudest witness to the world. That is very different from just staying in your house watching Sienfeld while the KKK marches down your street.
Personally, I think the fact that I’m a member of a church where over 80% of the members are African American, that I’m close personal friends with many of them, and I’ve known many of them for several years now, I don’t think I need to prove anything like that to them. In many ways, if you haven’t extended a hand of friendship to them prior to the KKK coming to town, then protesting during the event may be somewhat of a hollow gesture.
It doesn’t take much social capital to protest against something which 99% of the population is already against.
Phil – it’s not about “proving” anything to anyone.
Look. I’m friends with plenty of kids. I have some of my own. I care deeply for the welfare of kids and those kids that know me know that I do. And yet, I would not stand by silently and do nothing if NAMBLA came to town to put on a rally.
Anyone who claims a divine direction to protest against the KKK, but also suggests that those believers who do not have secret empathy with them, has no credibility. Sometimes there are statements made that are so vicious, and meant to harm, wound, and disparage, that the only good thing that can be said is that those statements magnify the grace of God toward their writer, even while that same grace is absent from his writings.
Chad,
You won’t provoke me to any more response than I have already given. It’s not my fault that you don’t know how to read.
jerry
Jerry, next time I see you speak out or write against something you perceive as evil or wrong should I remind you of your new favorite bible verse?
Chad continues to construct a field of strawmen that I call a “field of dreams”.
The NAMBLA reference is an especially creative strawman. When will we be called to protest against Hitler post mortum?
Where do you draw the line, Chad? There is some point where a group is so marginalized (and NAMBLA is good example of such a group) that giving them negative attention will actually be giving them what they want. It’s like a kid throwing a tantrum.
What if there’s an individual child molester living in your town. Do you stage daily protests outside his house? If you don’t, are you silently condoning his actions?
We who serve the Creator God, and who suggest He inhabits us, we now have been reduced to protests? That all we’ve got? The entire protest thing is more publicity than actual power to combat.
The Aryian Nations loved the protests because it brought them attention and their website went ballistic with new recruits.
Phil -
I think asking “where do we draw the line?” is the wrong question to be asking. First, we need to establish whether or not it is our duty as Christians to name, speak against and confront evil. I think most of us believe that is certainly one of our tasks as children of light sent into darkness.
This discussion is about an isolated, contextual event that actually took place. It’s not a hypothetical. Do you think the rally in Knoxville and the creative resistance shown there was, as Jerry called it, “a waste of time?” And Jerry’s reasoning for being silent is because “you can’t contradict” it. I don’t think that is Jerry as I know him speaking but the Jerry-who-doesn’t-like-Clairborne-and-is-up-in-arms-about-the-prospect-of-socialism speaking.
Overt acts of evil like parading KKK members is something that can easily be resisted in a creative manner that unmasks the evil for what it is while at the same time bring healing where wounds have long been inflicted. I think that poem capture well that spirit. It worked well in that case.
I don’t have an answer about where the line gets drawn. The individual child molester in his or her home is another issue. Is there a neon sign above the his or her house that says, “Kids Welcome?” Is he or she repentant? Is he or she cruising the playgrounds? Is he or she parading around the town trying to find new “recruits”? These are questions I would want answers to before considering whether “speaking out” against an individual is warranted.
There is no cookie-cutter approach to creative resistance. If there was, it wouldn’t be creative and it wouldn’t require our imaginations.
Chad,
When did I say YOU shouldn’t do something?
I said at the outset of this post: “it’s not for ME.”
If protesting makes you feel better, by all means protest. I choose not to and all of your white guilt is not going to change my mind.
I protest NAMBLA by being a good baseball coach, a cub scout leader, by working with those who have mental retardation at day camp, and working at the middle school, and by protecting my own children and the dozens of other kids who come in and out of my house on a daily basis.
I protest the KKK by being friends with and respectful towards black Americans and listening and learning from them as often as i am permitted to.
I protest poverty by giving away my money to those who need it more than I do and working at the food center when i can.
I protest stupidity by not watching television.
I protest cancer by holding the hands and praying with those dying from it or living with it.
I protest sin by preaching the gospel.
I protest legalism by receiving grace and being gracious.
So don’t tell me mr Holtz what I am and what I do and who I am because of it. you don’t know shit about what i do with my every day life nor do you know why i do it. nor will i tell you.
i don’t owe you one damn ounce of explanation or justification for my life and the way i choose to live it.
there you provoked me. and may God forgive me.
You don’t even know what creative resistance is.
and who said I don’t like claiborne?
i said his way of doing things is ‘not for me.’ there’s that whole reading comprehension thing rearing its ugly head again.
It seems that the KKK is largely a defeated foe – and they’ve unmasked for quite a while. Go ask the average person on the street what they think of the organization, and I’d imagine you would get near-unanimous answers that it’s evil. I actually think a good protest against a KKK march would be to have everyone boycott it. Let them march down a completely empty street.
Actually, Jerry, your exact words were:
You made a blanket statement about creative resistance against the KKK – calling it a “waste of time.” You then claimed that silence is the way to go because at least then you can’t contradict yourself.
I really don’t care what you would or would not do if the KKK came to your town. Just don’t make ridiculous statements like “it’s a waste of time” when people like the group described in the poem actually do speak out while you choose to remain silent. Especially on a blog dedicated to speaking out against the “persecution within” the Church, as your missional bible verse proclaims.
That would be a good protest. I agree. And in some contexts it would work wonders, I’m sure. My point here is that the protest the “clowns” did in the poem is not a “waste of time” like Jerry said, and “silence” is not an option for us either. Even a boycott is different from mere “silence.” Silence can look like active resistance or it can look like endorsement. If we choose silence we must be careful about which intent we exude.
Where is the protest against the KKK?
Protests are great- lots of people to preach to and give gospel tracts away to.
Of course, since the KKK really is insignificant anymore, it might not be well attended. All my years in the south, never saw a protest cept’ on the news and in history books.
But of course I would stand with my brothers from all races and proclaim the Gospel as a form of non-violent resistance.
I didn’t read your poem. I was too busy protesting NAMBLA by preparing for an FCA meeting at the school.
It is a waste of time. I stand by that. You cannot change my mind.
Besides, there is a significant difference between protesting stupidity within the church and protesting sinners outside the church.
This site does the former. To those outside the church, we show grace. If you want to creatively resist the kkk, then show up with extra candles for them, or show up with hot chocolate, or get several of your black American friends to set up a soup line for them.
Standing on the side of the road and protesting thing is a waste of time. show them grace.
i stand by that.
And stop calling it creative resistance. it’s not creative. it is nothing more than imitation when you do the same thing they do.
I will go on the record that I think the protest described in the poem is pretty much a waste of time, too. But, hey, we’re free to waste our time. Heaven knows, I waste a lot of mine. At least the protest made the people doing it feel better about themselves.
And actually, this whole negative attention and waste of time thing is one of the reasons why I have pretty much stopped looking at ODM sites and the like. I kind of discerned that a big motivation in their writing is simply to garner criticism so they can claim some sort of persecution. If I see someone linking to one of sites or quoting them as some sort of authority, I would probably answer it, but anymore, those sites have become parodies of themselves.
Those dukies sure know how to stir the pot.
I think we should protest non violently and silently.
So says someone who admits to not even reading the poem.
My God. What is wrong with you?
I like this idea. Very cool idea. The KKK’rs would not take anything, but you are showing true grace.
Chad and John with something in common. Imagine that!
I always come to the same redundant conclusions in threads like this:
I am right.
I wish I wasn’t.
getting back to the OP, maybe Shane Claibourne can make them some hemp sheets to make new hoods?
creative resistance, chad, is the term that claiborne uses throughout his book. that’s what i’m talking about. i don’t need to read the poem to know what you are talking about.
protesting the kkk is a waste of time whether it is done in reality or whether someone brags about doing so in a book or a poem.
i’m sorry. i know you have trouble seeing beyond your own point of view, but there are better ways to redeem the time. anyone can protest and, as I have said before, it doesn’t take one ounce of christian conviction to do so.
all you need is a little guilt.
Well, I disagree with you. I know TN. I have served churches there and will be moving back there in 18 months. This rally the poem describes didn’t happen 40 years ago but 2 years ago. Perhaps in PA, where I am originally from, a silent boycott would do the trick. But in Knoxville, a place still very much divided on racial lines and where the wounds of what burning crosses and lynching still hurt, a protest like this is by no means a “waste of time.” Not only does it demonstrate to the KKK that they are impotent even now in the South but it also proclaims a witness to the black community that white people will not sit idly by, biting their lips, while this evil is paraded once more in front of them.
It is a way to bring healing – through laughter.
Jerry – don’t say another word until you read the poem. You just sound stupid.
I really am shocked. All the times I have watched you pounce on people for critiquing something they never read themselves and here you are doing the same. The true events described via poetry are indeed “creative resistance.” You don’t know what your talking about.
And I read Clairborne’s book – I know very well what he is talking about. And you don’t get it.
Protesting is a massive waste of time and usually provides an outlet for an insatiable need to feel important in the kingdom battles. Most of the belivers who are having sifnificat impacts against the kingdom of darkness will never been known or seen and would never protest.
If the flat earth society marches, I will protest. They are as avante guard as the KKK.
Chad, here’s the rub – on a couple points:
1. KKK: I fail to see the benefits – aside from me feeling better about myself – of protesting a now toothless dragon. That’s why I asked you how you think the clowns would have fared in the 1950s when the KKK actually had a voice?
Get these clowns out protesting in China or Saudi Arabia or Eritrea and then we can talk. The people in these countries don’t seem to have the luxury of “imaginative” resistance as you put it.
2. Gospel: I can’t believe we’re discussing clowns… where was the gospel preached and proclaimed to even render this being under the banner of Christ.
2000 years ago, a major reason Jesus was rejected was because the Jews were anticipating a Messiah riding in on a white horse and decapitating Rome. He came as a suffering Messiah, but he was here to slay a much more powerful foe than Rome: sin.
He could care less for Rome. Sin and the power of death which results from sin, were far more powerful, insidious and destructive.
I see nowhere Jesus organized mass rallies in Jerusalem protesting injustice. Nowhere do the apostles try to stage a Million Man march down the Appian Way to protest slavery or crucifixion and the like.
The clowns were in no way reflecting or representing Christ. Did they go home feeling elated? Sure. Did they accomplish their task? Maybe for the day.
Racism is simply more guarded and less politically correct today, but it’s still around. Taking a stand against the KKK is like wasting time attending protests from the GodHatesFags.com guy.
much like this site has become.
well, then let’s remain silent about abortion and gay marriage too then…
i mean, it’s obvious that certain political activity is done out of “protest”…
instead of making claims like pro-choice politicians “WANT” to kill babies and have blood on their hands…let’s all stop being inflammatory, remain silent, and start adopting like fiends….
any takers?
it’s fascinating when any given “issue” isn’t one a person feels good about/or interested in, then everyone gets super a-political….
fascinating.
I would agree with that as well. Christians on both sides of the political spectrum need to let their actions speak louder than their words for once. Talk and protests are cheap.
Yep. What’s the name of this post, again? Oh, yeah….
The poem is funny, but pretty stupid.
I echo Paul C- where was the gospel preached? Where were these clowns in the 1920’s-1960’s when they (the KKK) really mattered?
Send those clowns to Darfur and see how really passionate they are.
Unless, of course, the KKK is in town. Then “actions” are a “waste of time.” Better to just be quiet.
#112 – I do not believe the church should make any issue a “protest” including abortion or gay marriage.
The greatest “protest” against abortion is adoption and the pro-life pregnancy centers.
Nathan,
We actually have a standing offer at our church to adopt any baby and place it with a loving family.
We do not want any baby to be aborted.
Gay marriage is a sin, but what can we protest? People who are sinners sin. Thats what they do. The only way to stop gay marriage is to change hearts. The only way to change hearts is through the Gospel.
Nathan,
All I said was that I don’t find Claiborne’s way a good way for me. I agree, anti-abortion rallies are, for the most part, stupid wastes of time. all they do is let people know where the line is drawn. It doesn’t do much for the children who are about to be aborted or the mothers about to have abortions.
I think the best protest we can make is like that of Ma Theresa: “If you don’t want your baby, give him to me; I do.” That is one hell of a protest that is bound to crush the gates hell into oblivion. That, my friends, is an assault on unrighteousness.
Paul the apostle was so bound up in his protest against state sanctioned slavery, for example, that he told Onesimus to head on back to his master. Damn!
Jesus was so opposed to state sanctioned crucifixion that he went to the cross.
Jesus was so opposed to taxes that he paid them quietly.
Philip was so opposed to racism that he sent the Ethiopian on his way, with nothing more than his Isaiah scroll and his baptism.
Paul was so opposed to poverty that he made sure some of his best converts were rich folks like Lydia.
Well, I suppose dressing up like a clown is doing something, so, OK… I just actually agree with Paul C. (OMG!) that the KKK is a toothless dragon. Let’s spend our energy tackling real foes, not ones that have been defeated. I know the South is somewhat different, but, still I don’t believe the KKK is really influential.
My parents actually lived in Tennessee for a few years. My dad was stationed at Fort Cambell from like ‘05-06′, so I have been there. There are some differences. I’m not saying that racism is a defeated foe. I just think the way it is displayed in the KKK is not the way it operates now. Really, they are dying organization that is doing anything they can to make people notice them.
Protesting is more of a self satifying event than a productive means to defeat what you’re protesting.
#95,
Jerry, you are spot on! You remember the gay protests at Saddleback last fall? The one thing that stuck out so loudly to me was how the church handled it. I felt it was too passive. Immediately, I said to Chris that they should have gathered all the food and cocoa that they could, and gone out to just start being kind, gracious, to them. It would have put them off so much. There is NOTHING like liberally applying grace to a situation to soften someone’s hardened heart. Being married to Chris, I see it daily, when he is kind to me no matter how badly I treat him. Always. And when I thank him and apologize, all he says is, “But I love you.” That should be our attitude toward those we disagree with or those who hate us. That was how Jesus handled things. When people throw hate at us, or when people are oppressed by others, how about ACTIVELY doing something full of grace?
In protesting, we only sink to their level. Instead we should seek to rise above by lowering ourselves to serve.
#122 – Zan, by this time next year you will be a-political since your views now are so dangerously spiritual!
Thanks Zan.
Strangely enough, i was on my way home from school the other night and thinking as I drove along how much I loved my wife. when i got home and was sitting talking to her I realized it wasn’t my love for her at all that mattered or that i was even thinking about. it was her love for me that I found so amazing and blessed.
i’ll bet it’s that way with others too. they notice our love for them and wonder, “how could they love me?”
well that’s lovely.
The hard part is loving those who do not love you.
Can you hear it?
“I hate you. You are black/homophobe/fill-in-the-blank”
“But I love you. Are you hungry/cold/thirsty?”
“Get away from me! I hate you!”
“But I love you. I love you”
“Why? I hate you!”
“I love you. God loves you. Can I get you anything to make your stay at this protest more comfortable?”
Thus might just possibly begin a conversation, not about racism, not about gay-rights, but about salvation. Not about politics or our society, but about God’s amazing grace and love to ALL humanity.
OK Zan, now you’re scaring me.
i don’t have a problem with your main point, Jerry.
the only thing i’m saying is that it would be nice for Christians to turn that clear eyed discernment about what is or what isn’t a waste of time for someone on their own pet issues and how they engage them in the culture…
if “silence before the shearers” is a realistic stance, then WHY NOT in the wake of 9-11, or when it comes to ballot initiatives on marriage, or abortion laws/restrictions?
or maybe, just maybe, “creative resistance/loving” is really only for the 2nd tier issues like protests against toothless dragons, but power grabbing, anger, name calling, and judging are still in line for what we think is still important?
pb,
i think it’s great your church does the adoption thing….
it’s rare…
at least, on this issue, you all put your money where your mouth is…
I don’t believe in silence, I believe in the gospel.
Let’s break this down.
Many of us broke the law because we didn’t like the law.
(Excuse me, I’ll finish this comment later. I’m going to go out and score some crack after I shag a hooker.)
(OK, I’m back.)
I was arrested for breaking the law.
In which a lot of tax money was forcibly taken from people that had little or nothing to do with this issue …
Yay, me!
I went to court to protest the facts that I shouldn’t have been arrested or prosecuted for breaking the law, and to show that the police committed misconduct by enforcing the law.
(That’s the argument that I’ll use if I get busted for this crack.)
The civil suit forcibly took even more tax money from people. Then another $10,000 on top of that.
Wow, Shane got something right!
Oops, spoke too soon. That money (the $10,000, plus two court cases) belonged to the people who unwillingly financed your little tantrum.
See, Jerry, here is where I see the irony. Some guy willingly gave $10,000 to alleviate suffering, and Claiborne totally misses the disconnect between what that guy did and exploiting the system to make others unwillingly give even more.
OK, maybe that’s not irony so much as obtuseness.
“Returned”?!?! OK, Jerry you’ve gotta be making that up. Or did the anonymous donor actually steal $10,000 from someone?
i agree with the “love others in the face of hate” thing…
but my question is this:
If after the discussion on Salvation and the “hater” gives their life to Christ, and yet they still remain pro-choice (for example)…
how will they be treated?
how will we make heads or tails of that?
brendt,
is there any time where civil disobedience is acceptable?
is it only for “extreme” issues?
When the church loses the exclusive focus of their gospel mission, then confusion reigns as the means become the end.
nathan,
would like to see a sermon i preached concerning a response to 9/11? It specifically says, at the end, something to the effect of ‘what if our response had been grace and not war?’
I contend to this day that it was that sermon, in part, that cost me my job at the church. people don’t like grace for those they disagree with.
just note some of the response in this thread.
jerry
full disclosure:
i know shane personally.
there are things he says and does i don’t agree with.
a lot actually.
there are things about the Simple Way that i find unhealthy…
i don’t buy many of his arguments…
that being said, this guy has the courage of his convictions AND he’s more of a pot-stirrer.
i don’t think a large part of his methods are normative for most people…
Nationalism is the untouchable idol.
You could have stopped at point no. 1 Paul. Take it from me, there’s nothing more depressing that sit around a group of white liberals who think they can solve all of the worlds problems if everyone just cared as much as they did.
Christian love (caritas) has love of God as its motive. It means doing the right thing no matter how you or anyone else feels about it, and no matter what the result.
Imagination vs. holiness.
Zan (#122)
See, I got as far as “daily” and thought that you were giving Chris the kind of crap that we, his “friends”, give him.
#133
I dont know how this is possible, but, the Holy Spirit can convince them of their error, perhaps through the Word, perhaps through the Pastor filled with grace that guides them into truth…..
Brendt, that was a perfect breakdown of the scenario! Tunnel-vision, obtuseness, lack of basic economic understanding….all of the above?
nathan, one step at a time. It is up to us to treat others with grace, to present The Way, and it is up to God to change their hearts. Unbeknownst to you, I bet you sit next to pro-life people on Sundays in church. I know I do. (well, partly because of their Obama/Biden pin they wore every Sunday during campaign season….argh!) they may never change. The homosexual may never change. But if they come every week to seek truth, and allow us to remain a part of their lives, then we must continue to pray for them and minister to them whatever way we can. Not condoning sin (like wearing an Obama pin to church) but still showing grace and love.
Brendt,
Now that is the proper way to read. You have insight beyond my paltry skills.
Nathan,
That, to be sure, is the gist of my point. But I’ve gone further and said that I actually agree with much of what Claiborne says, and some of what he does.
All I said, and this was missed more than once, is that it is not for me. God calls some to that, and others to different situations. It’s not for all of us.
If I was a single man with no children, perhaps it would be for me. As it is, I am a married man with three sons (and about 20 other children who traipse in and out of my house and refrigerator daily!). That is my protest. That is my ministry. Maybe later, it will be different.
jerry
Right. Because what Paul said is still true: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love.”
ummm….
thanks…
i know i sit next to pro-life and pro-choice people at the church i work at.
it’s a nice idea, Zan, but the sad thing is that my fellow pro-lifers haven’t been the picture of what you describe…
that’s what i’m trying to get at…
on another note,
it’s a sin to wear an Obama pin?
was it a sin to wear a McCain pin?
what about signs in the front yard?
personally, i don’t think the pins/signs themselves (one or the other) really matter…
so basically, if an idea comes from “the Left” it can’t be right or have a desire to love God or to call people to love of God?
i’m asking…
cuz that’s what it sounds like a lot around here…
to be clear:
the last part of 145 is a general question for people….
#146 is responding to comments about liberals
me personally, i think there are Christian values to be found on both sides
and unchristian values on both sides…
Yes. it is. just like it is a sin to have an american flag in a worship service too.
my former congregation did. the anglican church i just joined does not. i am glad of that.
the only sign that should be in our front yard is ‘welcome.’
no more so or less so than those who criticize the ‘right’ for holding opposing points of view–and there seems to be a lot of that around here too.
148:
yeah, i don’t like flags in worship spaces either…
149:
granted, but you’d have to admit the majority report in US Xianity is one that assumes anything “liberal” or “left” should be dismissed out of hand…
primarily because of social issues…
not very intellectually honest…since the vast majority of governance has very little to do with abortion and gays.
Would you say the same thing about Rosa Parks?
so the sin of the pin is related to context? or is it a sin in every time and place?
@151
or the children’s march in birmingham?
or people who block doors to abortion clinics?
it’s a sin to wear an Obama pin? YES
was it a sin to wear a McCain pin? YES
what about signs in the front yard? YES
But many believers are still on a journey. Political affiliations, to say nothing of pledging allegiance to a flag in a worship service, are all sin and compromise the Person of Christ and the spiritual definition of redemption.
Well, I think people on “the left” are generally well-intentioned, but as far as their ideas coming from God, I don’t know. I’d say I’m skeptical of either side claiming to have ideas that represent God. I think both sides are about equally wrong.
I do generally find that some on the more liberal end of things seem to have ideas that seem simply unrealistic or just downright stupid to me, especially when it comes to economic things. I just don’t think the world works the way they expect it to. On the right, I find the idea that somehow the US can represent God on earth quite a destructive idea. So pretty much, I think both sides have their heads up their butts much of time – at least if we’re going by what the politicians say.
If we could get past the “left/right” labels we could see people in the Spirit and not the flesh.
Rick,
i know how you would answer…
i guess i’m trying to see what the contours of people’s general rejection of your a-political stance really looks like…
both “sides” are attempting to impose order on a world…i think both have weird ideas about how the world works.
I don’t know – there is some truth in this, but I kind of think this is changing in America. I’m sure there are still large segments of Evangelicals that tow the line for the Republican Party, but I do think that is changing. For one, I think that many younger Evangelicals are simply not as politically engaged as their parents. They may go to the same church even, but they do not feel that the old Evangelical guard of people like Pat Robertson represents them.
I think the thing is, though, that many of people probably feel rather alienated politically. They don’t really feel represented well by either major party.
Jerry (#143):
Nah, you were just seeing the irony from the greater perspective of having slogged through the whole book. My perspective was limited to that passage and a few other references that you made in earlier posts.
#157 – My comment was also meant to show the divisiveness in political stances. If a believer in Jesus Christ espouses abortion, should I label her a “liberal” which indicates a demeaning term for conservatives, or should I see her as a sister in Jesus Christ who is still growing?
Politics breeds self righteousness, hatred, and divisiveness.
You want “Christian” politics unvarnished and in open display? Go to the crosstalk blog and see if thats what God wants from us. And even if you would not be so harsh, you’re still playing the same game.
True. God’s ways are not our ways. The world doesn’t “work” that way because it is fallen.
153: good questions.
It is never a waste of time to speak out against evil and to defend those who have been or are presently abused in some form or fashion. Some of you may think the KKK is a “toothless dragon” but I for the black community, to see those hoods marching through town still stirs up painful memories that are anything but “toothless.”
Leave it to white, privileged men to downplay the social sins and enormity of impact they have on people still today. Yeah, let’s all just ignore and pretend that racism doesn’t really exist nor ever did. And where it did? So what? I have a black friend. I’m no racist.
How blind of us.
Nathan,
I think anything that tries to accomplish something in the flesh is a failure because the flesh cannot accomplish anything.
I seriously have no use whatsoever for trying to accomplish through politics the things that can only be accomplished through the grace of God.
Blocking an abortion clinic door accomplishes nothing and is not comparable to Rosa Parks’ action. That is a false comparison.
However, the reason i enjoy reading books by ‘liberals’ like Lamott or Crossan or Clainborne is because it helps me to see their point of view and why they believe the way they do. But I don’t expect them to become like me in order to be saved.
They need only become like Jesus. If Anne Lamott can support planned parenthood and become like Jesus that’s her prerogative. If Shane Claiborne can get arrested every other day and become more like Jesus, that’s his prerogative. If John Crossan can dismiss the resurrection and become more like Jesus more power to him (or God since that will take more effort than Crossan can muster).
But I think it is highly disingenuous to suggest, as Chad did, that because I don’t do those things that I am somehow less of a christian or that my politics have skewed my theology. Or that because I choose to protest in a different, more creative way, that I am somehow a racist who must put on a hood.
I don’t dismiss the left’s agenda because I am racist or homophobic. I dismiss it because i do not believe it will bring about the righteousness and utopia that they hope and believe it will bring. But, on the other hand, people on the left who dismiss my point of view must resort to calling me a racist or a klansman or a wing nut or whatever.
Yeah. That’s real mature. (not that you are Nathan, but that is certainly the trajectory that was taken earlier in this thread when Chad had no substantive arguments to offer to my points of view and my own creative ways to resist. (See comments 89 and 119).
jerry
Chad,
You really aren’t even interacting with what any of us are actually saying now. You’re simply creating pitiful strawmen. So have fun.
Speaking and teaching about such things within the church is Biblical. But speaking about evil outside the church just curses the darkness and makes Christianity seem like just another political party. If I had not been saved I would still be pro-choice, violent, and a racist of sorts.
Jerry – you never offered any “creative” ways to resist until much later. I never said that because you do not protest “in this way” you are less of a Christian. I DID say, however, that your calling the act of resistance the poem describes (one you did not even bother to read) a “waste of time” and that just being “silent” is the best way to go as disturbing, shocking and unbiblical.
Now, had you refrained from judging an action by one group (an action you had no knowledge of since you didn’t read) calling it a “waste of time” and instead offered what you felt would be an even better protest (such as boycotting the rally and ensuring the street was vacant) than this would have been a very different conversation.
Re:164
How would you describe World War II? The Civil Rights movement? The end of apartheid?
Were those fleshly? Spiritual? Do you not care which way they turned out?
#163: Chad, trying to be discrete here, but, ummm, I’m black. Taking a stand against more systemic racism which is still rampant today is cool. But smacking around the KKK pinata? Not sure this is courage or just a platform for a bunch of guilty-feeling, college age white guys who just finished a course in Cultural Sensitivity to go home that evening feeling like they’re “in the trenches.” Now do something 50 years ago? Then you’re doing something.
All that aside, I fail to see how the circus you describe is somehow representative of Christ.
Contrast that to the stories posted on http://www.persecution.net. That’s real. Today American Christians’ greatest threat is not persecution but seduction. And they’re being slaughtered by the 1000s.
It may surprise you to know that most Christian liberals I know (and certainly speaking for myself) do not do what they do nor believe that their actions alone will do what you think we hope it will do.
168–Claiborne makes it rather clear that he thinks wwii was a non-starter. he would not have participated. he would have encouraged soldiers to get out of the military. he would have opposed any attempt to assassinate hitler. civil rights? what of it? according to Chad, it didn’t work. and, to be sure, I thought just last night about wwii and the atomic bomb that was dropped on Nagasaki and the one dropped on Hiroshima. there was an accomplishment to be proud of.
167–Chad you did suggest those things. i spouted them off ‘later’ because i didn’t feel the need to justify myself to you.
Those terms aren’t necessarily demeaning. A believer in Christ should just take those terms with a grain of salt and get on with life.
But at the end of the day, if one person says it’s O.K. to kill babies, and one person says it is a great moral evil against an innocent human being; they can’t both be right.
then why do it?
for your own self?
to assuage your white guilt?
because Jesus told you to?
Great!
he told me to do something different because he wants ALL people to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth…not just the ones who are my cause and my project.
wow, I should have put a
after that Obama pin comment, huh?
People, I was just joking! Did it bug me? yeah, it did. Is it inappropriate to wear to church? yeah, I think it is, and that is why it bugged me. Was it a sin to wear? no.
Do I like Am. flags in church? not particularly. Do I have a visceral reaction? no. My walk with Christ determines my politics and lifestyle. Not the other way around.
Now here is an astounding turn of events: I agree with the sentiment by Rick that we don’t want Christianity to seem like another political party. Who knew!?
So Paul, since it wasn’t done 50 years ago people should just shut up about racism today?
That makes a lot of sense.
This past week, in my American Christianity class, I listened to a lecture about the history of lynching in America and it’s ties to the Church. We have been reading articles by clergy and Christians in the South who argued for lynching as an almost “spiritual revival” and describing the events like they were a worship service, complete with its own liturgy.
After the lecture something happened. Several of the people in the 150 person lecture hall were weeping. Some black, some white. Some of the black people crying were people personally, deeply affected by this period in our history. One of my friends here has a grandmother that was killed by a lynch mob. We closed that class period with several people offering up prayers for healing and reconciliation and God’s peace.
While the KKK may not have the power it once held there is still lingering memories of the pain they have caused. Further more, they represent a sin of our land that is still alive and well with or without their physical presence. To say that someone’s active resistance to their rally is a “waste of time” is ignorant at best and racist at worst.
#170..
umm….huh…..42?
Brett – It is possible for a believer to be deceived about some moral issues. They do not see abortion as killing a baby like I do, they don’t understand the moment of conception truth.
But I know several who have been brought into that light after they were saved. The most obvious one is me.
huh? what are you talking about? It sounds like you think that by simply allowing blacks to drink out of our water fountains or sit at the front of a bus that racism is over and that we should just act as if nothing happened.
you aren’t this naive, Jerry. At least I hope not
ah, the ambiguity of the internets…
thank God for emoticons…
Speaking of irony…
The ironic thing is that generally it’s only privileged white kids who have enough free time and money to do things like stage protests while dressing up like clowns…
Sometimes Paul Carrington makes some outrageously profound statements. We white guys love to pat ourselves on the back because we hate the KKK. Let’s see when some black guy comes to marry our lilly white daughters.
Re: 180
Don’t mean to answer for Paul, but we would all get along a little more peacefully if we concentrated more on getting the logs out of our own eyes, before marching against those filled with specks.
It’ s easy to type this while sitting at my keyboard sipping on coffee; but if I ever saw a group of white folks trying to string up a negro for lynching, I hope I would have the courage to risk my life for the sake of the gospel. “For he who loses his life for my sake, shall find it.”
Good grief.
Who SHOULD be staging such protests if NOT privileged white people who have either been the perpetrators OR benefactors of racism???
As one South African theologian has written, when it comes to racism, white people need to be aware that they have either been a perpetrator of it or have benefited from it in some way.
Why can’t you see that in many ways, the protest in Knoxville is not only a way to laugh at the “powers” and show their impotency even in the South but also a way to stage a mass confession? Why can’t you imagine the possibilities of reconciliation that might occur in the South when black people visibly SEE white people DOING something that fights agaisnt racism?
Why is this so hard for us to appreciate as something far more than a “waste of time”???
Hey Chad, next July I will be helping a hundred or so kids at a day camp for those with mental, physical and emotional disabilities. I’d be happy to have you come up here and help me. I’ll even pay for your trip and give you some basic woodworking lessons.
We have quite a large population of people in the US with these sorts of difficulties. I’d be happy to introduce you to them and show you how much I don’t care.
AND, btw, i too have a class right now in Diversity in Educational Settings. I too wept one day, in front of the entire class (mostly women, mostly black) and the black professor because I had been denied ANY education whatsoever about the civil rights movement and people like Charles Hamilton Houston in high school. I too wept when we watched videos of the racism that existed in America. I too wept when i saw the pictures and wept when I read Letter from a Birmingham Jail and cringed when I read the Willie Lynch Letter.
You know what my tears did for the end of racism in America? Nothing.
Last Saturday I drove around Cleveland with 3 black women for about 4 hours. We visited an Arab American Grocery store and a Muslim Mosque. You know what that did to end racism in America?
Everything.
I’m not the naive one Chad. Seriously. You need to stop projecting your angst on the rest of us.
Jerry – I respect you and your genuineness. I really do.
I just think you overestimate the value these things have to the people who are supposedly being stood up for. If you want to show a black person you love them, do something loving for them. Offer to watch their kids or invite their family over for dinner. There are sorts of practical things that can be done.
Now I realize that the two things (protesting and doing works of service) aren’t mutually exclusive, necessarily, but I’ve been around the people who plan and go to these protests. It takes over their lives. It’s like the same people who stand outside of abortion clinics with signs. They think they’re accomplishing something, but I don’t think they’re doing much but assuaging their own conscience.
Wow. That ended racism in America? Who knew???
In the poem you didn’t read, do you know the stories of those involved? Nope.
Guess what, Jerry. The difference between you and I is I would never call any of the things you describe in your comment as a “waste of time.” I’d give thanks over them, and offer them up to God as a means of grace.
I don’t have angst. I have anger at your cavalier dismissal of non-violent, creative resistance to something that still to this day deeply affects a large number of people as a “waste of time.”
Like I said before, you care for the causes God has called you to. And I’ll care for the people God has called me too.
It’s really a win/win idea. Right?
But don’t you accuse me of being racist because I don’t give the kkk the time of day while absolving yourself because you do.
Thanks for being so cavalier and dismissive of my creativity Chad.
So are you coming up or not? Or should I assume that your dismissal of my offer is your way of saying you don’t give a flying f for the mentally, physically, emotionally challenged Americans who are every single day discriminated against in this country of ours?
What of it Chad?
187: And none of that is for you or I to judge.
Bottom line: In Knoxville, TN there still exists racial tension. In Knoxville, TN there are still black people alive today that have painful memories of what the KKK have done to their family (and still attempt to do). In Knoxville, TN, this creative resistance was just one of what is hopefully MANY means by which racial reconciliation can possibly happen.
No one is saying that there may not be better ways to resist and that there are not other ways we can show love. But don’t judge THIS way as a “waste of time” and claim it is best to just be silent when you guys would happily protest something you saw as infringing upon your “rights.”
My neighbor on my left is black. My neighbor on my right is Korean. Across the street another black.
I am not a racist.
Chad,
I know you mock me for saying I have a black friend and all, but, honestly some of the closest friends my wife and I have is a black couple from our church. We’re able to speak very openly and honestly about these things with them, and I’ll never forget the one thing he told. He said he was tired of Christians treating him like a cause because of his skin color. He simply wanted people to treat him like their friend.
Now, you can go ahead dismiss that or do whatever you want with it, but it’s been convicting to me.
189: If you really believe that than simply apologize for calling a protest you haven’t even read about a “waste of time.”
190: now you resort to coercion? Now you are just being immature.
193-
I think that’s great, Phil. Really. But please recognize this: There is a BIG difference between treating a black person (or community) as a “cause” and actively resisting racism in the world.
When white people once a year do something nice to black people on MLK day, that is treating black people as a “cause.” Organizing to resist the sin of racism as embodied in the KKK when they come to town is not treating the blacks as a “cause” but bringing the gospel to bear on a fallen world.
big difference.
The headquarters of all racism meets in the human heart. Let’s see you protest that.
Chad, here’s the thing.
Protests like the one you described are like a Tony Robbins event. People come with great expectations, have a wonderful time and then go home on cloud 9. It lasts about 3-4 days and then it’s back to normal. The “power within” dissipates.
So too with protests. They steal the headlines, make the participants feel like they’re a part of something larger than themselves… live off the fumes for a little, write poems about the escapades…
The “waste of time” comment probably comes from the fact that the much more difficult, though less glamorous, work is what really matters and changes things.
I just wonder if, in a climate like Tianamen Square, these clowns would have been so bold. Just wondering? In other words, they took the opportunity to pick a fight with a bunch of grumpy old men still living in the ’50s, desperate for legitimacy (even if it’s negative), and then run home holding the banner high that victory had been won.
Sounds like you are describing (or the same could be said about) a Sunday worship service. So, should we cease coming to worship?
And who ever suggested that this is ALL we do or that this alone is ENOUGH? No one.
Paul C,
I confess, I’ve fallen out of touch with most of my black friends from high school. The closest black family I’ve noticed lives a block and a-half done from me, and I just wave at them occasionally.
Will you volunteer to be my token black friend so we can join the resistance together?
Hmmm….I guess we can conclude that Chad doesn’t care about the mentally, physically, and emotionally disable people in America since he won’t come to Ohio and work with me next July.
200: You might conclude that if I suggested that what you are doing is a “waste of time.” Yet I do not.
#195: so perhaps the Pornography industry will be brought to its knees if we make a commitment to attend 3 to 4 pornography conventions per year. We’ll march, we’ll make placards, we’ll announce it to the media that we’ll be there.
I figure in about 2 or 3 years the entire industry will be brought down completely. Who’s with me?
Chad, the reality is that the KKK might be a nice whipping boy, but hardly represents the issue of racism. Secondly, by protesting events like this, it does ZERO to combat racism which lurks far and deep within.
There are varying degrees of racism. But it will not be conquered with placards, clown outfits and the like. It is sin. Sin is conquered by Jesus Christ and Him alone.
Me:
M.G. (#151):
Would I want to shag Rosa Parks? No.
Re-intrepreting your question, though…
Even though she was arrested, tried, and convicted, I’m not sure that Mrs Parks actually broke any law, so much as she defied custom and practice that grew out of the law. But for the sake of the parallelism that your question kinda assumes, let’s assume that she really did break the law.
The law that she “broke” was certainly an unjust law. But she broke it because she didn’t like it. In her own words (to the bus driver):
And recalling the incident later:
So, in a sense, yes, I would analyze the situation in the same way.
And yet, in another sense, I wouldn’t, as there are 2 key differences.
1. Parks’ actions were in response (at least partly) to the rules being changed in the middle of the game. Claiborne’s actions were in response (totally) to an established and specific law.
2. Obeying the laws that Parks “broke” and that Claiborne broke does not entail directly violating any Biblical mandate. Ought Christians to seek justice and to desire (and where appropriate) to seek to change unjust laws? Certainly. But no one got any closer to (or farther) from Jesus by where they sat or slept.
Now, not being familiar with Parks’ spiritual/theological background, I can’t honestly fault her for not observing this. But someone who specifically claims the name of Christ, as Claiborne does, puts himself at a different standard.
Put another way, while Parks’ overall motives may have been good, her specific actions were wrong. In contrast, while Claiborne’s overall motives may have been good, his specific actions were an EPIC FAIL.
Will anyone here protest air shows that show warplanes in action, some of which have already killed women and children via bombs? How about parades with tanks etc.?
In some ways racism and nationalism are cousins. Racism makes enemies of different races, nationalism makes enemies of different countries.
The enemy must always be Satan.
While I am not claiming that anyone here is pulling a Danny, whenever I hear Rosa Parks mentioned, I think of this clip from Sports Night (specifically 3:52 – 5:06):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtGPaY5CxWA
actually, Jerry.
your tears were the sign of a heart of compassion, brokenness…
your tears bore witness to something different about you to the people in the room you were in.
let’s not dismiss “feelings”…they push us along far more than we like to admit…
despite all our efforts to validate or deny them with our rational arguments…
Chad’s angst is his…it clearly clarifies for him his burden for the Gospel to be made real in the lives of people…to be born along in our deeds BECAUSE IT IS REAL IN THE HEART.
Jerry, your tears demonstrate to me the seriousness of your commitment.
you are moved at the level of your guts…
just like Jesus was…
that matters.
i think everyone here is way closer than they think…people just take issue with the way people talk about it.
there’s a ton of assumptions in this thread that “liberal” motives and Chad, specifically, have “angst” “guilt” etc. as if those things are bad.
but if we were talking about an unwed mother and her sense of grief over her abortion we’d call her “angst” the “conviction of the Holy Spirit”.
Let’s let Chad live out his life and his love for others in his context.
Let’s celebrate Jerry’s love for disabled kids…
Let’s not put a value judgment on Chad’s passions…simply because they are the particular concerns of community that most of you here admittedly disdain.
I will do so, provided that you agree to a joint press release announcing this new phase of race relations to the public. Do you have a blog? I am contemplating a Twitter account. Find me on Facebook and we’ll start a group.
Rosa Parks is an American hero. The rise and assimilation of the black race into an all white society is one of the eight wonders of the world. Obama being elected is a monumental achievment in race relations.
None of that is our calling as Christ followers.
Chad,
all expenses paid. seriously. you come up here work a week with me building birdhouses or flower boxes and i’ll work a week with you doing whatever passion fills your heart.
I’ll put my feet and hands where my mouth is.
jerry
Yes that would make it official, wouldn’t it
Paul, you don’t seem to understand any of what I have said.
I never said this protest will end racism. I never said that this protest is the only way to combat racism. I never said that there is not more, deeper, harder ways to overcome racism. I never said that the KKK is the entirety of what racism is, past or present or future.
What I have said is that speaking out against evil (of which we all agree the KKK is) is never a “waste of time.” Being creative in how we resist evil is a good thing – a holy thing, even. What happened in Knoxville should not be so dismissed as a waste of time but commended.
We seem to have a severe aversion to giving thanks around here.
Of course, your ways of doing something are much better, more lofty, more holy and far more righteous, right?
Jerry (#189):
No, if you don’t care (only) for the causes that God has called others to, you are an infidel.
Who said all ODMs have to be conservative?
I do not see Paul C. as a black man, I see him as a brother in Christ who through the eyes of flesh seems to be black. His skin clor is of no relevance to me whatsoever.
Paul are you on FB? Send me an invite!
No only yours are.
What of my offer?
Wow – miss a day miss a lot…
Calling a protest against the KKK a waste of time is a statement that cannot be backed up. What is one person’s waste is a another’s calling.
Saying not protesting against the KKK is to be accepting of them also cannot be backed up. Silence does not always equal acceptance. What is one person’s rallying point is anther’s waste of time.
Both statements are too definitive.
Calling the protests a waste of time was unhelpful and innocrrect.
Playing the racist card was unhelpful, unnecessary, and rather cliche.
Jerry-
If that weren’t within a couple of weeks of the due date for our baby (yes, my wife is pregnant), I might consider it.
Actually, I probably wouldn’t. Never would I head off on a “mission trip” because someone coerced me to do so or tried to make me feel guilty if I did not.
Your point is lost on me, jerry. I celebrate with you what you are doing for those kids. I just don’t get why you can’t celebrate something like a carnival in Knoxville.
Here is my question:
Paul Carrington does not believe in the Trinity; he does not believe in an eternal hell; and he is a black man. I consider him a brother in Jesus Christ.
Does that make me an apostate??
#208: precisely.
)
(though I hate the term ‘Christ followers’
Is there a reason that virtually every comment of yours is laced with anger?
Chad (#217):
WOW! Coercion and guilt trips are what you got out of Jerry’s invitation?
If that conclusion wasn’t so laughable, it’d be nauseating.
Very sparingly… though I check it about once every 2 months.
Chad, congrats on you and your wife expecting another!
#218: thanks Rick. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
(for the record, I believe in eternal separation from God – namely, death. I do not believe in a burning place called hell where souls are tormented throughout the countless ages of eternity)
That’s too bad Chad.
I’m not trying to coerce you. I’m trying to show that there is more than one group of people in america who are discriminated against and, as I said, your calling is not mine.
ok. so ‘waste of time’ was a poor choice of words and I am sorry if it offended you or dismissed you. it doesn’t change the way i feel about it all though. and to be sure, i was reacting to claiborne’s actions and not your poem.
Chad (#217): Never would I head off on a “mission trip” because someone coerced me to do so …
Jesus (Matthew 5:41): And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
Thanks for the clarification, there, Chad.
Jerry – Would you agree with me on this. Ipreached for 30 years as a pastor, and there some days I went and preached when I wanted to do almost anything else that day, but I went because I had to.
Sorry, pastors, but the emperor has no clothes. We are human vessels who, in some pastoral situations, submit to coecion and respond to guilt. God knows, let’s be honest. Cahd acts like he doesn’t?
Sorry, God knows.
That doesn’t concern me as much as that you are a black man.
Rick,
For the last two years of my preaching ministry I didn’t want to preach. I still get sick on Friday nights and it doesn’t quit until sometime on Sunday afternoons. I still cannot sleep on Saturdays because I think I have to write a sermon and get up and preach it the next day.
For the last two or three years I preached to a congregation that hated me, turned off their hearing aids, gossiped about me and my wife and my sons, demonstrated no leadership whatsoever, and fired me without cause or justification or unemployment benefits.
Yes. There are times when we are compelled to preach and do things we don’t want to do but we do them anyhow.
In fact, in about 2 hours I will be going to Blockbuster to work. Do you think I am excited about that? I’d rather go to a protest rally with Anne Lamott or Chad Holtz.
#225:
Yes, but you have to admit that the combination puts me in a pretty unique percentile. I just checked the census numbers and believe it or not I show up just after the category for “Lesbian wheelchair-bound blind Jewish women”
Oh for crying out loud. You guys will twist anything to demonize those you disagree with.
Jerry says this:
Sure. Conclude whatever you will. My point about coercion is that I am not going to come simply because it will, in your eyes, prove something. I don’t go on mission trips to prove to myself or to others that I “care.” I go because God calls me to this or that task.
It is pathetic of you people to use a mission trip as a tool to gauge whether or not a Christian has a heart for people who need help. Seriously, you should be ashamed.
Never in a million years would I say that you, Jerry, don’t care about orphans because you haven’t adopted any.
And NEVER in a million years would I characterize anything anyone does that they feel is their way of living out the gospel in their context as a “waste of time.”
Hey Chad, I apologized for the ‘waste of time’ comment in case you missed it.
But, you have said the same things to us. You said, if I recall correctly, that because I think it is a ‘waste of time’ i might as well don the hood, right?
OK. But I’m trying to coerce you!
I have said time and time again that we serve where we are called, and now you are throwing it back in my face? Seriously Chad, do you read anything that is written or do you just spout off with no real objective?
Again. The first thing I said in my OP is this: It’s not for me.
The second thing I said was this: It may be for some of you.
The last thing I said was this:
So do you see the part in there where I left open the possibility that perhaps I am wrong? Or did you gloss over that? Did you see the part where I said, “Maybe I need to visit him and eat and drink?” or did you pass it over?
I don’t want you to prove anything to me. You owe me no justification of your life and I owe you none of mine. I simply invited you to come up here, share my hospitality, my family, my friends, and work with another disadvantaged group of americans. then i, in turn, will go and celebrate with you what you do.
what part of that do you not understand?
223: More irony. Jesus was instructing people how to be creative in their resistance
But of course, that is all just a “waste of time.”
Ah, great news Chad!
Big responsibility though, enough to stress out the best of us.
My unsolicited advice:
Forgive anyone here for the anger they caused you, pray 1 Our Father, and go do something for your wife. All we be right with the world again.
What I said, Jerry, is that silence can be a form of complicity. And, you must admit, it can be. You gave no clarification to the “silence” you were suggesting be taken, only that you thought a creative protest against the KKK is a “waste of time.” The church had long been “silent” about issues of race. Any reasonable person would conclude that you were advocating for the same.
As for the trip, you characterized it from the outset as a way to “prove” that I care about your kids. In fact, when I didn’t answer right away (because I didn’t want to announce here that my wife is pregnant when we haven’t even told most of our closest friends, or my church) YOU concluded that it must be because I don’t care.
I go on trips like that because I sense God calling me to do so. Not because I get double-dogged dared to do it by someone being antagonistic.
Sorry.
You must not belong to the same church I do. The church has been largely responsible for the eradication of racism. Or maybe MLK wasn’t a Christian after all. You don’t mean the church, you mean white people.
no one forced you to share about your wife. all you had to say was, “i’m busy.”
Really? Wow. And all will be right with the world again? Amazing. Seems to me like prayer is just a “waste of time.”
*satire*
Actually, I believe prayer to be one of the many tools we have at our disposal as acts of resistance. Just like imaginative non-violent protest. What some here would call a “wast of time” I suppose
Maybe calling the protest a “waste of time” was a little harsh, and to be honest, I probably would not say it someone’s face who was involved. But in general I still do not think these types of things are all that beneficial, and I don’t really see as that creative, either, really. It just strikes me as too much like this. I also don’t think protesting a march is necessarily resisting in the opposite spirit.
But, hey, I do not want to become a Pharisee who sees my way as the only way. By the way, I just remembered that I was arguing to defend Claiborne earlier in the thread, so perhaps I’m just confused. My left brain and right brain are constantly at war with each other.
in some cases, yes. but in many others, not so much. In fact, they (the Church) have perpetuated it.
Phil, that blog can be classic. I go there for a lot of tips to help me in my interactions on blogs like this.
Funnily enough, I just saw the post on Camping.
Had me laughing out loud as it brought back a memory.
Couple years ago, when I was in Africa, we lived pretty much within a game park (wild animals). Some of the people in church worked as guides in the park. Of course, they live in grass/mud huts.
One of the young men innocently asked me, “Why do muzungus (white people) come all the way to Kenya and then pay big money to sleep outside?”
I explained the concept of camping and the joy people have with uniting with nature, cooking outdoors, fishing, sitting by the fire and all that. His response.
“Well then. I guess I’ve been camping for the last 23 years.”
It’s all in how you say it. Instead of waste of time, how about:
An exercise that just may prove to be significantly flawed as it pertains to productivity.
Well, once again, I said I was sorry for the ‘waste of time’ but you seem to want your pound of flesh. so, ok.
Attention: Chad is right. I am wrong.
I have to go to work now so this is my last thought on this issue.
Chad, you are my friend. I respectfully disagree with you. I stand by what I said. I have apologized for it, but I stand by what I said. Still, if you feel called to do it, do it. I never said I would stand in your way. I never said people who do it are wrong. I said, it is not for me.
Silence is powerful.
I have consistently said that I don’t agree with Claiborne’s methods. And to be sure, the OP is about Claiborne and not the poem you linked to–which is, to be sure, beside the point of my OP.
You have characterized me in a way that is simply ignorant, but that’s OK. This Saturday, I’m going to a protest for ignorance called ‘Diversity in Educational Situations.’ And Sunday, I’m going to another protest called, ‘Worship.’ I can’t think of two better ways to protest the ignorance, racism, and poverty of this world than by going to school and worshiping Christ.
Good day friends. I appreciate the conversation. I have learned much today that I might not have otherwise learned and I am glad to have learned it. I’ll leave you with some thoughts from a favorite book of mine called A Man for All Seasons:
Be well.
Grace and Peace.
jerry
That’s actually quite hilarious.
Personally, I hate camping…
Good bye, Jerry, and good riddens!
I hate camping as well. I’d rather go through the tribulation period!
#239
Amen!
Chad,
Congratulations on the new life the Lord has blessed your wife with, and entrusted to your care.
Saint Thomas More, pray for us.
#241, #242:
I was actually going to say this, taken from the final note of advice from the article:
You should not say something like “looking at history, the instances of my people encountering white people in the woods have not worked out very well for us.”
Thank goodness I read the full post. From now on I will just declare my distaste for camping as well.
Unfortunately, “he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us until this day.” But there is a resurrection coming!
Chad,
Jerry has apologized and clarified – yet you still throw the comment in his face.
Please respond to his admissions as they are due a brother in Christ.
Neil
As far as racism is concerned the church has been on the forefront of its promotion and its eradication.
Blanket statements that advocate that the church has only done one or the other are false.
What does it mean to say you apologize for what you said and yet insist you stand by it?
It’s saying, “I’m sorry I hit you but I’m glad i did it.” Don’t give back-handed apologies, Jerry.
This was never about your saying “what’s good for you is fine but it may not be for me.” This has been about you making the claim that someone else’s protest or creative resistance to evil is a “waste of time” while your idea is not.
And I agree with you – working with kids on Saturday and going to worship are powerful forms of resistance. God forbid I call them a “waste of time.” I won’t. And what I am angry about is your arrogance at calling the people of Knoxville who saw a KKK rally as an opportunity to show some goodness (and humor) in the face of an evil that still lingers in that part of the country. Rather than dismissing that let’s give thanks, ok? May it provoke us all to more and even deeper acts of mercy and grace towards others and inspire us all to stand up and resist where and when we see sin.
Jerry, I lived in the Northeast and the Midwest and now the South. I was in schools in all those areas. I remember being taught that that the Church was a “hero” in the face of racism and slavery and that all that “bad stuff” is in the past and we have a new future ahead, thanks to us white folk in Church, of course.
But that isn’t the truth. You say:
The church has been largely responsible for the eradication of racism
Not really. I am holding an article in my hands by Donald Matthews who edited Religion in the American South. His essay is entitle: “Lynching is Part of the Religion of Our People: Faith in the Christian South.” (I can email it to you if you’d like to read it).
Did you know that Christians in the South had a choreographed, liturgical way to lynch black men? Many of them were held on Sunday afternoons right after church. They were advertised and they even made postcards with pictures of the lynched man. On the back of one postcard of a man burnt to a crisp a boy writes this note to his mom:
Twisted, sick stuff. Did you know they theologized these lynchings and saw the black man as a “scapegoat” for the sins of the town? Pastors were either part of these proceedings or they were SILENT in the midst of them.
Speaking out against sin is never a waste of time. God forbid we Christians give off that sort of mentality. Granted, there may be better ways to do it and more imaginative ways to resist blatant and public sins (like the KKK) but please, don’t be so arrogant as to judge the means by which one group in Knoxville went about doing it.
If you do, at least have the decency to read the poem first before you call it a waste of time.
An exercise that just may prove to be significantly flawed as it pertains to productivity.
Phil (#240): Personally, I hate camping…
What is flawed is judging an action based on whether or not we think it is effective. We simply plant the seeds. God does the watering. Who are we to judge what is or is not a waste of time when it comes to speaking out against sin?
Does anyone know for certain that some members of that KKK rally in Knoxville weren’t convicted of their actions and perhaps repented? Does anyone know for certain that the people who witnessed this event were not in some way granted some peace and healing from wounds long afflicted?
A friend of mine pastors a church here in Durham and he just learned that 40 years ago the KKK was allowed into his church’s sanctuary, hoods and all, to give a presentation and to take up an offering to support their cause. Can you believe that??? My friend has members of his church still today who remember that event. Guess what? His church is an all white church in the middle of the “projects.” No black people will dare step foot there. DO you think they feel welcome?
Now, imagine the KKK having a rally in their town. Do you think it might make a difference in that community and in that church if my friend organized an active resistance to that meeting rather than just sit idly by? Do you think that in resisting that maybe some of the church member’s consciences might be pricked or that the community might find healing by seeing such a demonstration?
I would not call it a waste of time by any stretch of the imagination.
“Does anyone know for certain that some members of that KKK rally in Knoxville weren’t convicted of their actions and perhaps repented?”
I know it for certain.
Well, I’m out. Thanks for my monthly colonic, folks.
Every now and then I need a good reminder of why I find it more fruitful to spend time elsewhere.
take care
Seriously Chad, have you no grace to offer? Why must you be so hostile in the face of someone who stands by their opinion while apologizing for saying it in an offending manner? As far as i can tell, this is not so much a monthly colonic as it is a monthly exercise in condescension.
Again, you are welcome here, but please treat others as if they were brothers in Christ – even if they are conservative politically.
“monthly colonic”
Some who at least vebalize God’s universal redemptive love, effective for every sinner born, seem to exhibit interactions that are incongruous with their professed theology. The colonic swipe is representative of a graceless erudition that renders this blog as a “waste of time”, ironically, the same verbiage that the author found offensive when it was directed at something he found of value. Interesting.
Jerry, I would come help you.
I find protesting to be a waste of time that rarely has the desired effect.
I prefer bringing the Gospel to any situation.
I’ll come videotape that.
Wow… I’m kind of disappointed I was in class all day and missed the whole Chad-comes-in-and-calls-everyone-a-heartless-racist day…
The next thing you know, we’ll all be racist for voting against Obama because he’s an inexperienced radical, but the blacks who voted for him because of the color of his skin will (in the face of Dr. King’s words) get a free pass…
Maybe next time…
Chad-comes-in-and-calls-everyone-a-heartless-white hooded racist-anti-protesting, KKK sympathizing day…
Other than that, the thread was most innocuous and mundane.
It does seem that Jerry was elected the Grand Dragon.
I vote Joe for President!
Irony is Nadia Bolz Weber and Jay Bakker that are emergent and desirous of Social Justice, yet they have their bodies covered in Tattoos.
This latest tattoo of Lazarus
http://twitpic.com/nfr98
had to cost at least 500 bucks. Good work, well done. But with all the whining and demanding that we be socially just, why are we painting our bodies with thousands of dollars of art instead of giving money that could be used to build a sustainable business for a poor villiage in Africa or South America? How about Tsunami relief? How about supporting several indiginous missionaries?
#260
What would Julie Clawson say?
Why not protest this, Chad- this is socially unjust. Oh yes. You will argue with silence.
Write down the date, PB. I think I agree with you on part of #260.
I’ve got nothing against ink. I’ve even got nothing against getting inked to better fit in with a crowd that you’re ministering to.
But at a certain point, it becomes a Rosebrough-esque waste of money that supposedly belongs to God.
If this is a game of who wastes God’s money more, I’m declaring it an across the board tie.
Roughing it for me is a black and white TV.
I have ink. Called a payday tattoo, I got it on a bet at a biker tattoo joint in indianapolis. Cost me $150.
Not as nice as Bolz-Webers, but my spouse is not as tolerant of such things. She would never allow any more ink. Waste of money!
Isn’t there a better way to steward our money?
I can witness to a goth without dressing in all black. I can witness to a Biker without a leather coat. We do not need to contextualize in America. The gospel crosses cultures. The messenger is not as important as the message.
WOW – I hope no one ever starts looking at my checkbook to decide what’s valid and what’s not…
I have a lot of issues with Jay Bakker, but seriously, is it our right… is it right, to judge someone on how they spend $500?
Neil
I don’t judge the money, but I find the back and forth fawning over someone’s tatto a little adolescent. Kinda like when believers seem giddy over a certain beer or wine.
#266
Only if they go after people for social justice issues and how we wicked white middle class folks spend our mony.
Its at least $500 for that one tattoo…Take that times all the ones on Bakkers and NBW’s body and you could sustain a villiage for life.
well, if we’re going to start picking at tats, let’s make sure none of us rent videos, engage in any entertainment or leisure of any kind…
hell, let’s be amish.
oh, yeah….
Don’t pick at it — it’ll never heal.
liking tattoo art or being excited about the experience of a new beer or wine is not a big deal…
let people have their enjoyments….
it is easy to condemn personal preferences/interests one doesn’t share.
@260:
see…your comment assumes there is an “either/or”.
they’re probably doing both.
it’s also too easy to elevate personal preference to moral absolute.
lol!!
Claiborne has a section about that too. I think he’d agree.
It’s still none of your business and not for you to judge. You have no idea what percentage of his money goes to others, or who even paid for that tattoo.
The bottom line is it is wrong to pick one such thing and assume something from it.
#276
It just seems like hypocrisy, thats all.
And it seems appropriate to speak about on this OP- After all, could have NBW spent time at a homeless shelter- forget the money- those tatts take like 5-8 hours!
I am just sayin….
One last comment to clarify (for you Jerry, #274)
Had you said at the outset that you can think of more fruitful ways to non-violently resist evil such as a KKK rally this conversation never would have gone as it did. I have been consistent to say that the way offered in the poem is not the best way nor the only way, but hopefully it can inspire all of us to use our imaginations. (Of course, it helps if you actually read, first, what you judged as a “waste of time”).
But besides all that, I have never characterized the theological circle jerks that occur on this blog as “imaginative, non-violent resistance” to evil like the likes of the KKK. So even if I did call arguing (what St. Paul calls idle chatter) round and round on a blog a “waste of time,” opting instead to use the time spent here with my family, I would not be contradicting anything I have said here. Any stand against evil should not be flippantly judged as a “waste of time.” That is not to say, however, that there does not exist certain actions that are a waste of time. Sitting for 8 hours on a computer playing Solitaire is probably a waste of time. Sitting for hour after hour, comment after comment, arguing on a blog about any topic, theological or otherwise, is probably a waste of time. Unless, of course, you have somehow convinced yourself that you are fighting evil here. I hope not. Look around. Christians fighting with Christians is what this amounts to. If anything, there is more evil and sincaused by this than being resisted.
On a personal note (and I promise this is my last thing), I wonder how much relational angst has been caused by the amount of time each of you (self included) spend “learning” here or on other sites? I will confess that it is one of the things that caused a real strain in my marriage. While I justified my time spent blogging as “iron sharpening iron” or even “I’m saving the world with my ideas!!!” my wife was thinking, “He’d rather talk about theology with people online than spend some extra time with me.” Over the years, that piles up and begins to stink. I highly doubt I am the only guy here who has ever heard his wife say, “Can you get off the computer now?”
I have been preaching the entire book of Ephesians. With the personal struggles I have had lately you can imagine the trouble I had in tackling Eph. 5:21-33. But in working through that message I realized I have not loved my wife like Christ has loved the Church. I would not sacrifice something I loved doing, something I thought was “changing the world” for her. That sermon is on my church’s blog, here: Loving You ‘In Christ.’
So yeah, Jerry, there are some things that are wastes of time. There are some habits and actions that can become addictive and harmful to relationships that truly matter. Those “things,” though, whatever they are, should not be confused with acts of resistance (like a parade held on May 26th, 2007 in Knoxville) to sin. For me, stepping away from the internet and recognizing that for me, there are far more fruitful uses of my time, is one more way to resist evil. Those of you who are friends of mine of Facebook probably notice I have not been there for 6 weeks. Nor have I blogged. Nor have I been here (apart from the last day, which I shall remedy……now).
peace.
And here is an example of how people will trumpet their protest and even claim numbers like evangelists. This abortion protest was introduced by Ingrid with a swip at this blog (I assume) and she describes a point of view as whining.
I guess we must take her word that 2000 babies were saved from abortion, but if that is so, why not have it 365 days not 40 days? And 2000 African children die every day from malaria. The self righteousness (we protest and you don’t) is one aspect that I have observed. And it isn’t defined as reaching out in mercy, it is referred to, at least in places like crosstalk, as “taking a stand for life”.
And why can you eviscerate the Roman Catholic Church and warn people about the ecumentical movement leading us all to Rome, but you have only praise for that same church as you protest and pray hand in hand with them?
There are thousands of believers in Africa, India, South America, and other places around the world who minister to a litany of people’s physical needs and who help save lives. The difference is they have no newsletter, radio program, or blog with which to publish their deeds and swipe at others who do not do what they do.
Chad,
Really, I don’t care if you think this place is a waste of time. In many ways, it probably is. I don’t know that anyone here would equate our little articles with doing weightier things. I’m sorry to hear about your problems, but I think you need to be careful projecting your thoughts and feeling about what goes on here on everyone. If you feel convicted about being here, than by all means do not keep posting comments here.
I mean the ironic thing is that you have no problem condemning Jerry and other for saying that staging a protest is a waste of time, but you have no problem saying what we’re doing is a waste of time. Really, it just sounds like tit-for-tat. The fact is you can’t correctly judge any of our motivations any more than we can judge yours.
#279
I know ministries who preach outside of Abortion clinics every day Rick. 365 Days a year. Countless thousands have been saved from the mills to the glory of God.
We dare not be silent on this one; who are more innocent and defenseless than babies? Adults have made their wicked choices, babies have not yet had the opportunity. We should fight for this cause.
#281 – I have no quarrel with that, and in fact, if they are preaching then great. I have a problem with some of the chest thumping, as well as cooperating with the RCC on one day and calling them the seat of Satan the next.
#282
One of the ministers I know Had a situation where he was preaching to the RCC in between girls approaching the clinic!
No Hypocrisy in that!
The one thing I will continue to admire in you, John, is your uncompromising commitment to the gospel. BTW, I have preached many times in a CMA church in Dunedin, Fl.. Like I said, I am a mystic!
Seriously though – where does this end? You do not even know he paid for the tattoo. But it is moot.
When was the last time you went to a movie, or watched a football game? – those were hours you could have spent preaching on the street!
And when you went to Florida, had you taken a day to go to Disneyland for a little R&R – those would be hours and money wasted according to your logic. Please don’t tell me whether or not you did – ’cause it’s none of my business.
To pick on someone for a few hours spent and a few hundred dollars spent is asinine.
And since we all (you included) obviously do the same, I’d say you are the one sipping the hypocrisy drink.
Who is NBW BTW?
And as I said before, I have serious issues with Bakker – but this is silly.
Nadia Bolz-Weber
When I went to Florida, the only time we wasted was driving to and from, and that was after the cops said we couldn’t use our half mile hailer from the side of the car!
Look, we all waste time. The point is the continued attacks from the social justice side that we are not doing enough for the poor and downtrodden, while NBW and JB (and others) spend time and thousands on their tattoos that could be put to better use!
#284
Now all we need to do is get you saved from being a Notre Dame fan, and you will be in like Flynn!
I could just as easily point out that every minute you spend posting here is a minute you’re not “preaching the Gospel”, one that could be put to better use.
You’re really just jumping on the bandwagon to make any hollow accusation you can.
I do believe we all waste time and money. But I also believe there is a point to be made when those who aggressively tout social and economic justice for the poor spend money (maybe they were free) on something as useless as a tattoo. I think that was to John’s point.
(My son has many tattoos so I am not against them per se)
…on the other hand, Phil, there have been accusations of some of us not being saved… so maybe he is.
That said, there are plenty of things to pick-on with Bakker, taking the time to get a tattoo is petty, trivial, and…
Well, I think Rick got the point.
Here is the thing: It is rank hypocrisy to demean the established church for not doing enough to help the poor and the downtrodden when you are spending $$ and time at the tattoo parlor. A tatto0 never fed anybody, build a well, rescued a prostitute, etc.
I just wonder, Julie Clawson, Where is the everyday justice in this? I just wonder, Shane Claibourne, How many people could have been rescued with that money?
They can spend money and time however they want. Just do not look down your self righteous nose at me and say I do not do enough for the poor while you are in your tattoo parlor adding to your sleeve. Shane Claibourne’s and Julie Clawsons lack of outrage in this case speaks volumes. I guess it is only upper middle class white conservative suburbanites who fall under their scope of judgment.
(BTW I am with Rick. Tattoos are fine- got two myself)
It’s pretty obvious to me that you really haven’t read much of anything these people have actually written if you think that all they do is express outrage at “upper middle class white conservatives”. Seriously, I disagree with some of what Claiborne says, but I never got the feeling he was passing judgment on whole swaths of people like you’re accusing him. He actually did an internship at Willow Creek, for cryin’ out loud, and he speaks well of that church in his first book. If that isn’t a collection people you’re accusing him of denigrating, than I don’t know who is.
Again, the only thing that hypocritical is you’re passing judgment on people on whom you know very little about.
I got the point as well… I just think it an extremely petty point.
We all waste time. We all engage in hypocritical actions.
Picky on Bakker for a day spent at the tattoo parlor is about petty as it comes.
Tattoos? I do not pay for someone to inflict pain on me. I have to pay for pain killers!
I see things are back to normal…welcome back to the ‘real’ John…it was nice to have your doppelganger here yesterday…
Jerry, I was just making another comment on irony!
I think it is at least ironic that these folks call for us to drop everything and protest and break the law and save the poor and practice everyday justice while they are sitting in Tattoo parlors getting expensive tattoos all over themselves!
That is ironic at least, isn’t it??
Guys, a little help needed… (off topic I know)
I am not a theologian, but would like to get a view on Arianism and precisely what about it was deemed heretical. Is it that he claimed Jesus was created and is lesser than God? It seems he was cast out due to his view on the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. I’m reading a little here, but fail to grasp it altogether.
Paul C.,
You’ve nailed the basics of it. Whether he actually said it or not, Arius is credited as saying; “There was a time when he was not” – and this is what Arianism believes. Although there are various branches of it as with most things.
The basic premise is that Jesus is/was not eternal in the past. He was created and therefore not consubstantive with the Father, he might be “a” god, but not “the” God – think modern-day Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Arian has some benefits, it rationalizes the “begotten” passages as well as makes the Trinity more understandable.
Unfortunately it guts the Christ, the second person of the Trinity of his absolute deity… therefore it was denounced early on as heresey.
True heresy, in the classical sense… the way the word has been used historically… not the “everything I disagree with is heresy” we see so much of on the www.
Well, that’s pretty much it. It really has to do with Christ’s nature. Arian claimed that Christ was divine, but that he was created. There were also some people (although, Arian didn’t claim this) who said that Christ was born a completely normal human being, and He gradually took on divinity.
The Nicene Creed was really born out these controversies, and that’s why it’s so specific about Christ’s nature:
I’ve always appreciated C.S. Lewis’ differentiation between “begotten” and “made”. The word begotten connotes that the being who is begotten takes on all the qualities of whoever begot him. So if the Son is begotten from the Father, He has all the qualities of the Father, including being eternal.
Arian also means Jesus was white.
Some things are too obvious to be said…
OK, thanks guys…
So how would a verse like Colossians 1 be interpreted that declares Jesus was the “Firstborn of creation”?
Is this in line with the Nicene Creed?
The context of Colossians answers this. Paul is not making a statement about the ontological beginnings of Jesus, he is making a relational statement.
Paul speaks to believers about their share in the inheritance in 1:12. This is strengthened by the fact that Jesus is “the firstborn” – this is a statement of position and right – not origin. being the firstborn carried all sorts of rights – it is this that Paul is metaphorically applying to Jesus.
Please do not be completely tethered to any so called creeds. They all could be wrong.
The human language has some ambiguous and crossover words that must be taken within the whole of the New Testament.
So, for instance, that verse in Colossians must be juxtaposed against, for instance, John 1:1. So the “firstborn of creation” word must be understood in the context of premier or superioror, rather than indicating Christ was created. Unless the Spirit means creation in the sense of his earthly birth.
With this I completely agree. Especially creeds that often seem to be overshadowed more with politics than the Holy Spirit.
I agree with Neil’s statement. Saying he is the “firstborn” isn’t Paul somehow saying that Jesus was created. It’s talking of His rights as the supreme ruler of the universe. In the culture to which Paul was writing, the firstborn son inherited the entirety of the father’s estate and power. So Paul is essentially making the point that Christ has all the authority and power of the Father.
Also, in the same passage, it’s interesting that Paul notes in verse 16, that all things were created by Christ as well. This statement is in and of itself giving Christ almost de facto equality with God, simply because in the Old Testament, the act of creation is attributed pretty clearly to God.
Well, I understand the spirit of this statement, and Scripture is over and above any creed, but I also believe that those who were involved in crafting the creeds were led by the Holy Spirit and wisdom. If we do happen to come to a different position than what’s laid out in a creed, it needs to be done very carefully, I believe.
#306. I think that’s a good comment overall.
And how does the Holy Spirit fit into this overall? Is ‘he’ also co-eternal?
I know we’ve discussed this before, but I don’t want to get into an argument over it, but maintain a good spirit…
- why does the HS never appear in any of Paul’s intros?
- where is the HS referenced in Rev 21-22?
- why is the HS left out of the hierarchy Paul describes (1 Cor 11)?
As far as why the Holy Spirit isn’t mentioned in the introductions, I don’t know. He definitely talks about the Holy Spirit elsewhere. There is a pretty explicitly trinitarian reference at the end of 2 Corinthians:
The way that sentence is worded there is a nice parallelism pointing out all three members of the Trinity and the different gifts they bring to a the Church. Also, Paul mentions the Holy Spirit several times as being the seal or deposit for the work Christ is doing in us.
As far as why the Holy Spirit isn’t mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11, I’d say that Paul isn’t answering a question about the nature of the Godhead. He’s trying to convey the importance of still observing certain cultural customs. If a woman had her head uncovered, it would bring dishonor to her husband. So just as Christ honored the Father, a woman should do this to honor her husband. I don’t think it’s really as much about hierarchy as it is drawing an analogy based on the love relationship between the Father and the Son.
Re 307 – it is, of course, impossible to answer “Why not?” questions.
I see a reference to the Spirit in the introduction to Romans… in fact, the introduction is very Trinitarian: s”…servant of Jesus…the Gospel of God… the Spirit of holiness…”
To say he never appears in Paul’s intro’s does not carry much weight. First it is not true, since there is one occasion in which the Spirit does appear. The rest are all almost identical greetings, so clearly Paul had a standard greeting that he employed. So a better way to phrase the questions would be “Why did Paul’s standard greeting not include a reference to the Holy Spirit?
Answer – no way of knowing. And to imply this is an argument against the existence of the Holy Spirit as a “person” is to fore upon a greeting a theological meaning never intended – plus it is an argument from silence.
Yes, there is no denying the existence of the Holy Spirit. I covet the work of the Spirit in my own life very, very deeply.
I guess, the concept of the Holy Spirit being a person is the issue at hand. If the Holy Spirit is a person in the Godhead, to simply leave him out (consistently in every single letter, plus the letters of all the other writers) strikes me odd, and beyond just coincidence. Also, when John finally describes the Kingdom in Rev 21-22, the absence of the Holy Spirit is striking.
I’m trying to get a sense of how people understand these omissions and whether it strikes them as odd as well.
There are a lot of things I find odd about the Bible. At the risk of blasphemy – it could have been a whole lot clearer… but then again, God could reveal himself in a manner that no one could deny as well.
#310. Regarding your Romans reference, I’m pointing to the consistent way in which Paul introduces every letter. It’s found in v7:
Where? Romans does not, as the consistent intro appears in v 7 as per above.
Yes, that’s the question.
If the Holy Spirit were a person of the Godhead, and Paul believed this, it would be extremely odd to omit.
Well, if there’s no evidence for something yet people claim there is and say, “Just because there’s no evidence, it doesn’t mean it’s not true”, that doesn’t really hold up. Just trying to get an honest sense of how you see it.
The Holy Spirit is separate from the Father and Jesus – that is seen throughout Scripture. The question then remains, I assume, is the Holy Spirit a third member – is the Godhead a Trinity or hmmm… what would two be?
Anyway, if it is not, what is it? It cannot just be the force of God
If it is an it, how can “it” be grieved, why is “it” referred to with masculine/personal pronouns?
In Acts 13 the Holy Spirit says “set aside…for me” this implies person.
Self reference, personal pronouns, emotion – all attributes of a personal being of some sort.
Here’s the thing: the Trinity has become the main pillar of Christianity (debatably, but it’s up there in the top 2 or 3) and yet it appears very, very flimsy.
I appreciate Phil’s/Neil’s comments about the eternal nature of Christ and I embrace this understanding too, but when it comes to the Holy Spirit being a person, it seems we get into very murky water.
I believe in the Holy Spirit (and even in speaking in tongues – a matter for another discussion), but as for the Spirit being a person? If ‘he’ was, the fact that Paul doesn’t greet the churches in the ‘name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit’ speaks volumes. Same for all the other writers. And indeed John in the book of Revelation.
Perhaps the reason the Holy Spirit isn’t mentioned in the vision described in Revelation is simply that by definition, a spirit is invisible, and John is basically reporting what he saw.
The Holy Spirit does show up at the end of Revelation (22:17), though:
As far as the actual personhood of the Holy Spirit, I’d have to say to talk about that begs the question of what exactly determines whether an entity is a person or not. It seems to me that one simple test is whether or not it can be interacted with on a personal level. It seems to me that the Holy Spirit interacts with humans in a way that is unique from both the Father or the Son, so I don’t find much difficulty referring to the Holy Spirit as an actual person in the Godhead.
re 313:
First you say there are no references to the Spirit in any of Paul’s into’s.
Then I show you one.
Then you say, no just this one verse…
OK – so what you mean is, in his standard short greeting there are no references.
The answer remains the same.
is it odd – maybe.
does this prove anything – no, not against the weight of the opposing arguments
It certainly is in the top three… along with the existence of God, and the deity of Jesus, the doctrine of the Trinity is core of Christianity.
Flimsy – I beg to differ. The doctrine was recognized very early on and has been a significant pillar in the core doctrines since. There are fringe groups that deny the core – always have been, always will be…
If not a person – then what?
And you are going to give Paul’s omission, an argument from what is not said, more weight than definitive statements of personal attributes?
God himself is a spirit. That much is borne out in several areas of scripture. The fact is that John is describing the personages of the eternal Godhead.
Phil, what I’m referring to is the New Jerusalem:
If the Holy Spirit is a person, he would have been mentioned here. Again, God is a spirit.
But that’s the thing. A glaring omission speaks volumes. If it happens once or twice, OK. But consistently and by all the NT writers? That gives you a true sense of what they believed.
Paul consistently gives glory to both the Father and the Son, but nowhere is there praise and worship toward the Holy Spirit.
Oddly enough, though, in all the discussion regarding the Godhead at the church councils, the personhood of the Holy Spirit was never really called into question. It was really just accepted as a given.
The discussion of the trinity always focused on the nature of Christ – was He one person with two natures, or was it one nature with some sort of split personhood. I don’t recall reading of anyone ever really doubting that the Holy Spirit was a person in the Godhead.
Here’s what the New Catholic Encyclopedia says:
If this was from the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons, we could write it off, but it’s from the very RCC.
How do you explain this?
OK – I can see you have one favorite argument and I have addressed it… I will wait to see if you care to adress any of my counter points.
At the point where you say the Holy Spirit must be mentioned at a particular point if he is a person I believe this has become futile. How can you make such a statement?
is it odd? – sure.
must he be mentioned as you say he must? – of course not.
Paul C,
Speaking of irony.
Aren’t you the one starting up a brand new Church of Christ with the True Christ?
You got a bible and you can read; why you need anybody else to tell you what it means?
What happened to “building on the biblical standard rather than the musings of men.”?
I do not have to. It is one editorial opinion. I do not care if they think the impression could arise.
The fact remains that early in the history of doctrinal formation the Trinity was recognized.
The thing is that Mary veneration was first sanctioned in 431AD during the 3rd Ecumenical Council. So, I don’t put much weight on councils. Not to say we write them off entirely, but we put them in a category much, much lower than scripture.
Let’s go back to the written text.
cf. comment 314
#324: Brett – at a bit of a loss here with your comment.
I asked about Colossians 1, which Phil clarified (and Neil), which I now see what they are saying and accept that. Phil’s comment actually clearly explained this for me. I accept his explanation and can see what he’s saying. Makes sense.
Again – at a bit of a loss here (?? sorry.)
Wait a minute… you quote a Catholic encyclopedia that makes an editorial comment… but deny appeals to historic creeds?
But if the very originators off the doctrine we’re discussing begin to shed the possibility of doubt as to how this doctrine was formulated, shouldn’t it be considered?
See comment 326 (so was Mary veneration, not too long after).
“Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you!” – The Angel Gabriel Luke 1:28
Mary veneration was first sanctioned.
i’d be more concerned about a christian who denies the Trinity than a pro-choice christian.
God has spoken, everything else is commentary.
so this “musings of men” vs. “biblical standard” is a non-existent dilemma.
Paul,
There are plenty of other passages in the N.T. that refer to the Holy Spirit as a person. But outside of listing them, have you taken the time to look at how Paul closes his letters? What you see as a glaring omission because it’s not in his introduction doesn’t mean that it is an omission. Every letter was to be taken as a whole.
we have to remember, despite strong arguments from Scripture, that Arians had strong arguments from the sacred texts too…and they were actually a majority opinion about the nature of Christ with the average Christian of the day.
it took councils and politics to reel them in…
we have the “filioque” issue precisely because it wasn’t really a settled matter as to the co-eternal nature of Christ with the Father…and christian missionaries with germanic tribes didn’t want to allow the more intuitive arian position to get a foothold.
so they added that the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son…
the point is that, regardless of a direct chapter and verse in the bible, there is some “logical/rational” arguments being made about the Spirit’s status from the claims that Jesus made about himself and the Spirit he said would be sent…
held together we get a picture of the Spirit’s divinity…
p.s. if you’re not Trinitarian, you’re a hell bound apostate and worse than any emergent.
So when was the Encyclopedia you quoted published? Recently? Their comments are purely editorial.
The fact that the personhood of the Holy Spirit was not codified until the fourth Century is as relevant as you want to make it… as far as I am concerned that’s plenty early considering the Scriptures themselves were not codified until just a bit earlier.
Were you not the one who wanted to get back to the text?
the letters of Paul are occasional in nature…they are related to specific issues/pastoral concerns.
they are not meant to be systematic expositions of our modern theological categories of Theology Proper, Anthropology, Sin, Pneumatology, Ecclesiology, etc. etc. tec.
we can only take the NT texts as a whole and start commentating/discerning them as we hold them together.
there is no value in “proof texting”….
This is pretty much just false. Tertullian mentioned the term in his writings. That would have been at the end of the second century, beginning of the third. It was out of this that the formulation of “three persons, one substance” gained ground.
Except for the Modalists, the “one substance” was the point that was debated.
re: canonization.
sometimes i wish The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache had made it into the canon.
It would’ve made things spicy…
#336: yes Neil, I think it was relatively recent. What I got from it was simply the fact that even (yes, even) the RCC seems to have the integrity to question such a core doctrine and revisit its legitimacy. It doesn’t mean they deny the Trinity at all, but they are at least admitting it may not be quite as firm as most people think. That’s all my point was in referencing it.
Yes, a cursory review shows that the only letter with mention of the Holy Spirit is 2 Corinthians. What have you observed from the other letters?
Before I get fully ex-communicated from here, let me state that I am not Arian (nor an expert on this teaching).
Sure, I believe this fully. He wasn’t necessarily teaching theology like we categorize it.
My point has been that to include 2 entities of the Trinity, while excluding 1 – in EVERY letter, even by the other writers – speaks more loudly than if he had dedicated a chapter to the nature of the Godhead itself.
I have an answer – but will not give it since you ignored my other responses and questions.
if the Spirit does not have personhood then what is it?
If you are willing to base your theology on an argument from silence, on what was not said, in light of all the references and attributes that are positively stated – there is nothing else that can be said to convince you
Sorry Neil – with all the comments, I honestly overlooked this question. I would say that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God. It’s the essence of God for a lack of a better term. It is the power of God. It is the Spirit of Truth that comes from God and witnesses to the hearts of men.
So, you can grieve the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God desires unity (John 17), love, kindness and so on.
So is “Wisdom” in the entirety of Proverbs 8, referred to with female pronouns.
There is a difference between personification that takes place in poetic literature and the statements of events that take place in historical literature.
The Holy Spirit said – “Set part for me…” this is more than just the power of God talking – for “power” cannot talk – it is itself an attribute, not a possessor of attributes.
The bottom line is, throughout the NT the Holy Spirit is given person attributes.
It is through the Spirit that God communicates with us. It seals us. The Spirit is what we enjoy fellowship with God by.
I appreciate your comments on this Neil.
But how can an “it” use a personal reflexive pronoun… outside of anthropomorphic poetry – which Acts 13 clearly is not, and Proverbs clearly is.
I have authority in my job. I can tell people to do something and they do. But that authority, that power, that force, would never be referred to personally.
If I used my authority to get something done, no one would say. “And Neil’s authority said “Do this for me…’”
Nor would they, if they disobeyed my authority say; “And by not doing this you have grieved the Authority” – the authority is not grieved I am…
Only persons or personalities can be reflexive and be affected emotionally.
Paul,
I don’t really have time to write them all up. I also think that it sinks in better sometimes when we do our own reading. Any concordance search (you can even use sites like http://www.studylight.org or http://www.biblegateway.com) will provide a list for you to go through. My personal recommendation is that you read through the N.T. and every time you come across a passage that mentions the H.S., reread it and make a note of it.
To get you started, the Gospel of John and Acts. But the Spirit is mentioned quite often in the epistles as well. If you still desire a listing of passages, let me know and I’ll send that to you when I am able to.