So it’s 6:09 AM, Wednesday. I haven’t slept at all, and I won’t be anytime soon. I have to work in three hours so there is no point in even trying. So here I am: awake and blogging.
I have recently blogged about Shane Claiborne’s book Jesus for President and some of that blogging caused heated exchanges and much good, very good, and worthless conversation. I’m intrigued by Claiborne–not least because of the really cool glasses he is often pictured wearing–but also because he irritates me, sort of like that sand that gets stuck in swim trunks after a day at the beach. There are few people who irritate me in such a way and yet, like the beach, I still go back. Not too often, but enough.
He recently wrote an article for Esquire. Well, it was a month ago. I don’t know if you read it or not but he (or the editor) titled it, What If Jesus Meant all that Stuff?. The article is written in the form of a letter to his ‘non-believing, sort of believing, and used to be believing friends.’ I like that. Those are the people he should write to. Here’s how he began:
I feel like I should begin with a confession. I am sorry that so often the biggest obstacle to God has been Christians. Christians who have had so much to say with our mouths and so little to show with our lives. I am sorry that so often we have forgotten the Christ of our Christianity.
Forgive us. Forgive us for the embarrassing things we have done in the name of God.
The other night I headed into downtown Philly for a stroll with some friends from out of town. We walked down to Penn’s Landing along the river, where there are street performers, artists, musicians. We passed a great magician who did some pretty sweet tricks like pour change out of his iPhone, and then there was a preacher. He wasn’t quite as captivating as the magician. He stood on a box, yelling into a microphone, and beside him was a coffin with a fake dead body inside. He talked about how we are all going to die and go to hell if we don’t know Jesus.
I admire Claiborne. He is in the trenches of the place he lives, with the hurting and weak. He, obviously, has great compassion for the people of the world–the down and out, the weak, the poor, the hopeless, and helpless. It is nothing short of the ministry of Christ and I’m glad that he does it. I’m not criticizing that at any level.
Nor am I particularly concerned with his theology either. He has some important things to say and I think he gets a lot of it right–in the sense that I also get a lot of it ‘right’. He’s a fan of grace, as am I:
In closing, to those who have closed the door on religion — I was recently asked by a non-Christian friend if I thought he was going to hell. I said, “I hope not. It will be hard to enjoy heaven without you.” If those of us who believe in God do not believe God’s grace is big enough to save the whole world… well, we should at least pray that it is.
This is not a post about universalism. I don’t particularly care one way or another whether any of us believe all will or will not be ’saved.’ You won’t change my mind, and I’m not asking you to change yours. Nor is this a post about the merits of hell either. I don’t particularly care if you believe hell is a place we go or if it is right next door to your house.
What I am concerned about is this idea that Claiborne feels the need to apologize for me, for you, for other Christians as if he has been appointed to such a place. God himself doesn’t feel particularly compelled to step down out of heaven with his megaphone and apologize for us so why should Claiborne do so? Part of the idea of Claiborne’s article is that God did not come to condemn the world but to save it and then, as if speaking out both sides of his mouth at the same time, he condemns the very ones God has already deliberately saved–Christians. Why? Because he disagrees with the way some Christians convey the message and the use of some of the words that Christians use in doing so. (Condemn might be a harsh choice of words here, but hopefully, even if it is hyperbolic, you get what I am saying and won’t get stuck in that moment.)
There is a terrible incongruity in that, don’t you think? If God hasn’t condemned us (and Paul seems rather convinced in Romans 8 that he hasn’t; and won’t; and that no one can) then who is Shane Claiborne to do so? What right does Shane Claiborne have to apologize for me and my actions and my failures and my triumphs? What right does he have to condemn his brothers and sisters–simply because they do things differently than he does–while at the same time acting as if he himself is the father of all humility who alone has tread the path of righteousness? (Because that’s how he comes off at times with his apologies on behalf of me and you as if he somehow stands apart from all that is ugly about the church.)
You know how he sounds don’t you? We pejoratively refer to those who cast stones and heap scorn upon the church as ODM’s. There is an instinctive discomfort experienced by those who hear such things from other christians. Why do we shoot our own? No one has ever said, as Claiborne falsely dichotomizes, that Christianity spreads better ‘by force’, but who is to say his way (’fascination’) is any better? (Although Matthew 11:11-13 might suggest differently.) Who can say if God uses a preacher and a megaphone and a coffin or if God uses a man who grows vegetables in old toilets or if God uses humbled world leaders to accomplish his purposes? And who are we to criticize when he does? And who are we to apologize? I may not find street preaching particularly appealing or effective way of sharing the Gospel, but Jesus did and used the method quite often himself.
And who is Shane Claiborne to apologize for me? God has already ‘apologized’ for me: it’s called the cross. And the way I see it, no other justification is needed. That’s grace.
Maybe God used Slice of Laodicea to minister to the needs of people. Maybe God used Nooma to minister to the needs of people. Maybe Ghandi was a bag of hot air and his opinion of Christians is meaningless because he is DEAD. Maybe Mark Driscoll is just as effective as John McArthur? Who’s to say? I have a hard time reconciling this statement:
So if God should choose to use us, then we should be grateful but not think too highly of ourselves. And if upon meeting someone we think God could never use, we should think again
with his statements at the beginning where the street preacher with the megaphone is somehow the bad guy. If God can, and does, use anyone or someone (as Claiborne writes) we think he could never use (such as ‘bullhorn guy’), maybe we should take Claiborn’s advice and, well, think again.
Maybe he should too.
Look, I get his point: many (all) Christians have done many stupid things. OK. We get it. And humility is good. Right on! I’m with you. But we don’t need a spokesman and the world does not need apologies. All the ‘I’m sorry Christians are such a lousy lot of buggers who killed witches in Salem and Muslims in Jerusalem and did a bunch of other unsavory things in the name of Jesus in hopes of converting a few’ will not change the world one iota. Enough of those apologies have been uttered or muttered.
If, as Claiborne rightly asserts, God can and does use people like murderous and adulterous king David, whoring and lying Rahab, slithering and scandalous Solomon, adulterous Samson, and the whole lot of them (just look at the list of nasties in Hebrews 11) and saved their stories as the articles of our faith, and didn’t apologize for doing so, then I think it is right to ask whether or not Shane Claiborne or any other ODM has the right to criticize fellow believers or apologize on behalf of Christians in this world who routinely make a mess of things and give unbelievers a reason to unbelieve.
If God is for us–that’s us: stupid, simple, weak, sinful, fragile, faithless, unkempt, makes bad choices, don’t honor God’s name properly, us, we, the church–then who can be against us? Shane, my friend, my brother: That’s the whole freaking point of grace! When I foul up, I will say I’m sorry for myself, to the person I hurt, for the sin I commit. I don’t need help thank you very much.
Who needs to apologize for us when He has already done so at Calvary?
For another point of view, click here.
140 Comments(+Add)
Jerry,
I can certainly understand the idea that one person can’t really apologize for the actions of another, and I also understand your point about the fact that it’s not our place to be condemning other Christians. I guess though when I read Shane’s article I didn’t feel as though condemnation of other Christians was his main motivation for apologizing. I genuinely felt that his motivation was reaching out to the people he was writing to. Perhaps that is the biggest thing that set ODMs apart – they point at evil done (or what they think is evil) by other Christians for no other purpose than to set themselves apart as some sort of gatekeepers of the Church.
I guess how I viewed Shane’s apology was more along the line of something like this. Say I go to a party with my brother and he gets drunk and makes a total ass of himself. I suppose that I would say to the host before I left, “I’m sorry for how my brother acted, he’s been going through a rough time lately” or something like that. Now, my apology will not really make things right between the host and my brother, but it will at least let the host know that I am trying to see things from his perspective and that I don’t simply condone everything my brother does simply because he’s my brother.
We are all one family Christ, after all, so in that sense, there is a group accountability that is present. I think that occasionally, it’s OK for this accountability to be seen by the world at large, and that it can be for the good.
I think the very fact that such an article most likely struck a chord (not a nerve) with so many is because the world does need to hear Christian apologize. And I have no problem with Shane being my mouthpiece to the world. Most of us would never get invited to write for Esquire. He did. And so he chose to take the opportunity to acknowledge a justified perception that the world has of Christians. Shane’s lifestyle and his commitment to follow Christ is far and away closer to the gospel than mine. And so I am grateful that he chose to apologize for me.
I am sorry.
Recently, the government apologized to African Americans for owning slaves. Obviously, none of the existing politicians were alive during that time. And to some African Americans, the apology rang hollow. And some whites were offended that the government apologized on their behalf. But I think it was at least a step in the right direction acknowledging that slavery is 100% wrong.
I’m okay with Shane apologizing for Christians and the US government apologizing for white slaver owners.
My $.02.
Gotta run.
Shalom, Jerry. Good thoughts.
Nathanael,
I don’t disagree that Christians need to apologize. I think I said as much. My beef is that Claiborne thinks he needs to apologize for me. I make my own mistakes and I repent when I do. If he would have couched his language in first person pronouns, I would have no problem with it. As it is, though, he didn’t.
thanks for the input, but in my opinion, his apology sounds more to me like, “I’m gonna do my best to get in good with these [various unbelievers] by setting myself apart from all those so-called believers who have done all sorts of bad things in Jesus’ name.”
I don’t know. The article, at least the first part of it, rings hollow with me.
I like the idea you put forth that God has apologized on your behalf, Jerry. I found Claibourne’s article very prideful and it seemed to me like he was writing out of a voice of superiority looking down on the rest of us Christians trying to follow Christ in our own way. But thats me, and I am sure this open air preacher will be dismissed.
We do not need to apologize for God; He didi the kindest thing ever in sending Christ to pay the penalty for our sins, taking our place (He is our penal substitute). There are all kinds of people he saves, all kinds of different roles that we play, all kinds of gifts we all have.
One of the worst things we can be, Shane, is a cannibalistic sheep. It reminds me of the game my mom used to play after she divorced my dad, apologizing for him and making herself the victim all the time to earn my love. She already had it, but she felt like she had to vilify my Father to feel it more.
Phil,
I fully agree that his motivation was to reach out to those he was writing to (See my comment to Nathanael), but we probably don’t agree on the extent to which is doing so (again see my previous comment).
And, to be sure, I did note that my use of the word ‘condemn’ was a bit harsh and perhaps a bit unjustified. Clearly, however, he is distinguishing himself from the rest of the body. (I do correct myself at one point: I told Nathanael Claiborne should have used more first person pronouns; he did. My bad.)
Still I cannot help but feel that there is something disingenuous about the appeal. Instead of pointing out what is wrong with christians why not point out what is right with Christ? Why would an unbeliever (or any of those others he writes to) be interested in joining up with a group that has so much to apologize for? Does he really think people will be bowled over by such an admission?
I think that is naive.
Anyhow, I see your point and I’m glad to have it alongside the rest.
jerry
Jerry, I didn’t hear Shane say he is apologizing for Jerry.
I agree with Phil and Nathanael – Shane is speaking from a place of compassion for the lost and desires that that those who have turned a deaf hear to the Church might listen anew if they first saw some humility and confession.
I guess I think those who are most offended by this are perhaps those who think the glove fits?
I confess to people all the time for the sins of the church and for ways I may or may not be complicit in those things. The fact is, there are many, many people who think Jesus has something to say but have been deeply wounded by Christians who think they speak for Jesus.
I am sorry you took his message the way you did.
One of my favorite books is Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller. There is a story he shares about how they set up a confessional booth on their college campus during the college’s biggest party week of the year. The twist, however, was they would not be receiving confessions but giving them. Donald shares how this was a complete shock to those who stumbled into their booth and was a very moving, holy, sacred experience for many. Many of the pagans that entered were so touched by hearing a Christian simply say “I am sorry….” They never heard Christians apologize for anything before.
This is what I hear Shane doing. I stand by him for it.
Chad, of course you didn’t hear that. You probably heard him apologizing for Chad.
And, once again, I didn’t say apologies should not be forth coming. I just said Claiborne has no moral authority to apologize for anyone other than himself. He cannot apologize for me. And I don’t need him to.
I also said a lot of other things in my post that I agree with him on. There’s a lot of it there that, as I wrote, I think he has right.
I don’t expect to win the approval of anyone here with my opinion. It’s just that: my opinion. And in my opinion, i disagree that he has the moral authority or weight to apologize for anyone other than himself.
I have to go to work for the next 8 hours so I’ll leave you to carry one without me. Thanks Chad for your two cents. I’ll file it along with Phil’s and Nathanael’s and John’s inside my ‘here’s what I learned from this post’ file.
I’ll talk to you all later on–say around 6 or 7 pm after work, etc.
jerry
PS–I read that part of Miller’s book. Eh. I still don’t know or understand how anyone can apologize to someone for something they haven’t done. If you can explain it, I’ll listen. As it is, I have enough sin in my life to apologize for and repent of without inviting that of others in also.
Jerry.
That’s cool. However, I have to wonder about what seems to be an extreme sense of autonomy that you convey in your post – as if what I do or do not do only affects me, myself and I.
Contrary to popular secular belief, we are not autonomous individuals. We are part of a BODY – the Body of Christ. When the heel is acting like a heel, the hand and ankle are implicated and affected.
It’s called humility. It’s called empathizing with the pain caused to someone by people like ourselves and admitting that we (Christians) are humans, too, and we fail, and to put flesh and blood on an apology that might bring healing and restoration to someone’s broken soul. It’s a work of the Spirit, in the end.
It’s sort of like Jesus taking on the sins of the world even though he himself was sinless.
It’s recognizing that there are powers and principalities at play in the world that are bigger than “individuals” or you and me and understanding how these powers hurt people. But the “powers” are not going to apologize. Therefore, it is a powerful thing when, for example, a white person hugs a black person and has the courage to say, “For what we did to your family, I am sorry. Forgive me.” It gives the person in pain a flesh and blood substitute through which they can hear someone, anyone, say “I’m sorry” and then allow them the space to forgive.
But of course, if we insist on taking the position, “I never did anything to you so get over it” we can just perpetuate the hurt and pain caused.
jerry,
i agree that someone cannot really apologize for something they did not do. yet, someone can express regret (expressed as apology) for things done that they may be connected with through common. association.
in that sense i liked the apology.
…on the other hand, i agree that picking on a particular expression of christianity as he did with the street-preacher probably focus his attention too narrowly.
you do realize that this pretty much describes every post by silva and the rest whom we used to address regularly – don’t you?
i’m not sure i agree (maybe because i don’t understand) that god apologized on the cross.
I like Claiborne. I fully embrace his apology for me, in fact, he doesn’t go nearly far enough. I am personally humiliated at the paultry effort I have given over almost 35 years.
But I also revel in His grace alone. I amnothing – He is everything – and He has made me part of everything – which is all in Him!
Personally, the scariest part of this post was the visual of Jerry trying to get sand out of his swimming trunks.
I know little to nothing of Claiborne, but recently I have been out in the streets talking to people about the Lord (started a new church). When you are speaking to strangers, many of whom have pre-conceived notions as soon as they hear the word “Jesus” or “church”, I see nothing wrong with expressing regret (as opposed to apologizing) about what has evolved.
Many people have had terrible experiences or first impressions (ie: Benny Hinn) of what Christianity is.
We would do well to remember that the field has been sown down with TARES (counterfeit wheat), and so anything we say is loaded with preconception in the minds of our hearers.
Basically, Claiborne might be using psychology in order to gain permission to speak to his audience. I really don’t see anything terrible about it and I took no offense at all.
this is the premise of dan kimball’s “they like jesus but not the church.”
When Steve Camp released his 108,000 theses, he started by noting that he had screwed up in the past. The only problem is that the rest of the screed was so harsh, that his early “admission” came off as a FailSafe move.
Claiborne doesn’t strike me any differently. He’s humble and d*** proud of it.
Chad,
You wrote, I suspect with a smirk on your face, the following:
I’d like to say thank you for that bit of wisdom because by God I didn’t know that. And that is not what I’m suggesting or saying.
What I am tired of is people like Claiborne speaking ex cathedra. I’m sorry Chad that you disagree, but Claiborne does not speak for me. He may speak for his community, his family, himself. But I am not aware of any sins that I have committed against anyone that Claiborne knows that he has the right or moral authority to apologize on my behalf to.
I’m not conveying a sense of autonomy; I’m conveying a sense of utter disgust at the hubris one must possess in order to think that one has enough humility to apologize on behalf of every freaking christian in the body of Christ. That’s what offends me.
OK. I realize that is a bit rough and I don’t want you to be angry with me or accuse me of being anything other than myself so I will state it now for the record: I am wrong; I am sorry; I repent; I am serious.
jerry
Neil,
18, the problem I have with that analogy is that we ARE the body of Christ. Jesus tolerates us, doesn’t he? How, then, can a person say, “I love Jesus, but I hate his body?” Isn’t that part of Paul’s argument, “You can’t say to the foot, ‘I don’t need you’ and then cut it off.” Yes, that’s a bit of a stretch, but I think the same basic principle is evident.
I don’t believe you can love Jesus if you don’t love the church–even with all of its attendant ugliness and scariness. The church is the representation of Christ on this earth and someday Jesus will clarify what that means, but in the meantime, as I read through the letters (in particular Revelation 2-3) I see the words of Jesus as sufficient rebuke to the church. And his forgiveness of us is sufficient ‘apology’ to the world. If his grace is enough, then let’s leave it at grace. Right? And when we sin, let’s repent. And when we need to be forgiven, let’s apologize.
The pope speaks for Catholics; Claiborne does not speak for ‘us’.
When I say that God ‘apologized’ for us at the cross, what I am saying is that the cross is God’s forgiveness; it’s his justification and ours; the cross is the place where God sets us free not to be condemned by anyone. I’m not saying we shall live arrogantly, but I am saying that there is no place for condemnation. And in this case, Claiborne’s words strike me more as the words of a Silva than they do of Jesus.
Who appointed Claiborne to such a place, to such a position? Can you see Peter going before Caesar: “O mighty Caesar, I realize that we Christians have offended you by our antics and brought disgrace to the name of Jesus and that is why you have rejected him. I apologize on behalf of all the Christians in the world for the terrible things we have done.”
Caesar: “Yes! That’s what I was waiting for: You Christians are evil, just as we suspected. Now I am justified in rejecting you. Your Jesus I like, but you suck. Therefore I reject Jesus.”
Eh, doesn’t work for me either.
Brendt – Mo ome can know the heart, however it is my “opinion” that some pride lurks with all of us. So given a choice I wll take humility with a taste of self righteousness as opposted to self righteousness all dressed up as discernment and not so dressed up as a panoramic judgment of almost everything.
In summary, I have no allusions about Claiborne, but I find his lifestyle and approach personally challenging. What he sees is what he has to offer – of course – imperfectly.
I am sorry that the church hasn’t been what it should be and continues to be considerably less than what we profess. In that, Claiborne is correct.
I kinda see where you are coming from Jerry. I mean I see what Claiborne is trying to do and I think maybe it can have a positive effect, but I am not sure he really can apologize for me, especially since he doesn’t speak for me.
But then again, if his apology heals a broken heart so that he can maybe become someone’s friend or at least begin a dialogue with them, maybe it doesn’t hurt.
I recently watched the movie, “Lord Save Us from Your Followers”, and maybe Dan Merchant (the film maker) was trying the same thing.
In Merchant’s movie he was trying to point out that the insensitivities of some Christians paint all Christians in a bad light. So we focus on the love of Christ and not so much on the Law of Christ.
And since Claiborne is focused on the Christ’s love, even if his apology is empty or not a real apology or maybe I haven’t even done something wrong, maybe, just maybe, it doesn’t really matter.
Just a couple thoughts.
in the case of kimball’s book, the “they” are unbelievers. so such theological truth is lost on them.
kimball does admit that their perceptions of jesus are usually incomplete as well.
Paul informd ud that we are epistles – read of all men. And with that in mind, our walk should “adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things” or we become a stumbling block.
I do find the concept of adorning God’s absolute truth as extremely challenging. But this challenge is about truths that are visible and practical, not the finer dotrinal points that only “theologians” rehash.
Humility and love (etc.) can be lived and seen; the Trinity and the virgin (etc.) birth are post salvation issues.
In other news Jimmy Carter apologizes to Jews.
Pigs fly!
Snow falls in Hell!
…and his grandson is running for office…
Martin Luther, the “Great Reformer”, was a rabid anti-semite. He is revered by many and has entire denominations that bear his name. But his anti-semetic teachings which were profoundly hateful and disgusting, contributed to the social and ethnic climate that led to the Holocaust.
Should we not apologize for that even though I personally did not lite the ovens? Many professing believers participated in the slave trade and owned slaves, and later on were at the core of bigotry and hatred in the South. Should we not apologize for that even though I never owned a slave.
I will never understand the resistance to issuing an apology for horrible things done in Christ’s name even if we did not personally participate. What does an apologize hurt? Our pride?
I don’t get it either, Rick.
Regardless of whether we personally committed this or that, most of us have benefitted from the sins of others.
Well, Rick, I am not a Catholic either, and most of the atrocities (Crusades, etc.) were done by Catholics. It would be arrogant for me to apologize for them. I would also argue that many people who owned slaves and were unkind and brutal with them were christians in name only.
To the unbelieving world that means nothing.
This is just an ignorant thing to say. It was the only Christian voice to speak of. It wasn’t like there were fundamentalist Baptists that were around to offer an alternative theory of Christianity. If you were living during the Crusades you probably felt like you were living during the Bush years here or were doing something significant like signing the Magna Carta.
PB – It is not a matter of dissecting who actually was responsible for the sins and who actually was saved. It is a matter of projecting redemption.
If my memory serves me correctly Someone didn’t just apologize for the sins of others (Father forgive them…), but He paid for those same sins.
What are we afraid of; getting blamed for something we did not do? Everyone of us has escaped public blame for things we DID do, it might be fair on some level to be publicly sorry for believers and unbelievers who have done things in Christ’s name which were not of Him.
The apology in and of itself helps sinners see humility, forgiveness, and allows them to see a difference between the professing believers who committed atrocities in Jesus name and those who rejected those atrocities and were willing to say so by an open act of contrition on behalf of others.
God forbid someone thinks we are worse than we really are.
lol@me. Not sure why I typed “Magna Carta” above. I was thinking of “manifest destiny.”
pass the egg nog, please.
Rick
Merry Christmas!
Health Care
Debt Celing!
#32
Roman Catholics are not Christian, they are catholic. Their behavior with the inquisition, slave trade, crusades, indulgences, and their complicity with the government prove the fact that the institution is not christian.
36 – But we are not saved by our works, right?
you are a walking contradiction
Christ often used the Pharisees as an object lesson of what not to do. The RCC issue is “in house”. If an apology paves the road for an open heart, so be it.
#31 – I do not celebrate that “holiday” because I am a true Christian.
BTW – Paul’s warning about the observance of days etc. were about OT days that actually were ordained by God. Christmas is a man made holiday that is not the accurate birth time and serves as a sentimental salve on one hand and a hedonistic outlet on the other.
How can God bless a man made holiday designed to give gifts to each other and not Jesus of which this day is supposed to represent His “birthday”? The whole thing is antich…never mind, I don’t want to interfere with your Christmas experience.
For that matter, how can God bless anything we do?
Paul also said all things are permissible but may not be beneficial. He also exhorted us to give thanks in all we do to God.
Rick, you are welcome to your hangups and personal convictions about Christmas. You remind me of my former Nazarene friends who still feel going to a movie theatre is antichrist. They are welcome to hold that opinion and live what I would call a rather fearful and restrained (and ungraceful) life.
The seasons of the liturgical year, of which Christmas is a part, can be wonderful reminders of God’s grace and love. Of course, anything can be used as an idol and be perverted. That does not make the season itself antichrist.
Don’t be such a party pooper.
I seem to recall someone saying, “What you do to the least of these you have done to me.”
this is a meaningless distinction for anyone but a few. try telling the muslims of mostar that the croats and serbs who shelled their homes were not “real” christians.”
I openly apologize for everything that anyone has ever done throughout human history.
(Including celebrating Christmas)
I’m so glad I could play a small part in bringing Rick and Chad together at this holiday season.
I’m fine with you disagreeing with me on this. Let’s say, for the sake of the argument, that this ‘apology’ had been issued by, say, John McArthur or whatever big-wig mainstream evangelical you wish to name. Would you feel the same way about what was written?
I’m not trying to trap you. I’m trying to get an understanding for why you think you believe it is necessary for Christians, year after year, generation after generation, to issue apologies like this? Instead of the type off criticism that Claiborne levels in the article, wouldn’t it be better to teach about grace and mercy?
Earlier in the thread, Phil used an illustration about apologizing for someone at a party who makes a fool of themselves. Phil said we would apologize to the host on our way out. But let me ask, are we really apologizing for our brother’s behavior or are we saving our own pride? You know, sort of like, “Yeah, I’m sorry about him. I gotta take him home, and he’s my brother, but please I’m embarrassed about his behavior and I have nothing to do with him. Please don’t hate me because of him. He’s an idiot. I’m sorry.”
It rings hollow. So in the article Claiborne’s foe is a preacher on the street with a coffin and a sermon. And Claiborne feels the need to apologize: “Yeah, that guy’s an idiot. Please don’t hate me because of him. He might not be a ‘real’ christian because his sermon is strange, but let me demonstrate a real christian point of view and why you should ignore him and listen to me.” It rings hollow. Who is to say that someone hasn’t been blessed by that street preacher’s sermon? And as I noted, if Claiborne believes that God can and does use anyone, then why is Claiborne criticizing someone God used and apologizing as if that man were committing a mortal sin by street preaching?
Do you see how that makes Claiborne either a hypocrite or terribly arrogant? It does not make him a moral authority to issue apologies for his ‘drunk’ brother who is ‘preaching’ on the street unless Claiborne is really only interested in his own pride before those unbelievers who criticize, along with Claiborne, the street preacher.
Anyhow, that’ my take. Feel free to disagree.
jerry
jerry,
at the risk of agreeing with both sides – i kinda do…
i think it can be repetitive and feed victimology to continually apologize for past wrongs.
on the other hand, when there is a distinct public relations issue (for lack of a better term) based on both the historic and recent behavior of believers – acknowledging the ought-not-ness of that behavior may have its benefit.
or to put it another way
while i think there are legitimate needs to wash the face of jesus…
…i’m not sure an open apology in a secular magazine is the best method.
Honestly, Jerry, I wouldn’t care. I would assume he is attempting to reach a particular audience and perhaps he feels strongly that whatever I (or those like me) are doing is contrary to the way of Jesus.
Jerry – you hit the nail on the head. The whole need to conduct “apology tours” for ills you had no hand in seem to be somewhat self-serving, rooted in pride. I think it is legitimate to say, “I know that there are Christians who have done X (the Crusades, etc.), but I do not believe that behavior is supported by what we have been taught in Scripture.” Apologizing for them isn’t yours to grant, and is rather presumptuous.
No, to Jerry’s point, rather it is an attempt to stroke our own pride through magnanimity that is not ours to own. To the example of a drunk brother at a party, you can certainly be embarrassed about him, but you don’t have the right to apologize on his behalf – that’s his to own, not yours.
As we have likely suffered from the sins of others. Keeping tally – in either direction – is either sanctimonious or a product of victimology, neither of which is morally attractive. Apologizing for the sins of past generations no longer living is a pointless exercise in ego-stroking. Recognizing their errors – as errors – is the reasonable thing to do, if it is needed. Apologizing on their behalf is just arrogance, since you don’t own their sin.
So then why are we apologizing for the sins of someone else when their wages have already been paid.
Of course it doesn’t matter if it’s false humility, since there is no humility involved in apologizing for sins you do not own – only pride and sanctimony.
Actually no, they are Christians, even if there are stark disagreements in finer points of doctrine between the RCC and other branches of Christianity (Protestantism, Eastern Orthodox, etc.).
Let’s take a look at what Paul said about observance of days:
Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day.
Paul’s admonition was not against celebrating holy days, but rather against thinking better/worse about others (or yourself) for your observance/non-observance of days. The primary disagreement at hand was the practice of Gentile Christians who did not celebrate Sabbath. Paul does not forbid celebrating Sabbath, but rather he forbids thinking that such a celebration has an impact on one’s holiness.
Neil – to Jerry’s point, recognizing that what the croats and serbs did was immoral and not in line with what Christ taught does not require a faux apology on behalf of someone else.
No one has to worry about Chris L being humble.
Nor is judging the motives of others and setting up a false either/or proposition.
No motives being judged, nor is it a false either/or. It is basic English.
When one keeps a record of the past wrongs made against them (or their ancestors), that is – by definition – victimology. That is not a motive, it is a basic definition – it doesn’t speak at all to the reasons that the “record of wrongs” is being held on to, but simply that it IS being held onto (thus, victimology).
Sanctimony, by definition, is false righteousness. Keeping a record of wrongs not committed by you, and then apologizing for them is false righteousness. It is false, because the wrongs were not yours. It is ‘righteousness’ because it is a demonstration that you are holier than the person who committed the sin for which you are apologizing.
Maybe you should take English 101 before enrolling in an MDiv program…
Chris L, I find your rigid adherence to certain principles rather than the spirit of the letter to be deeply dissatisfying and troubling.
While you may be right that no one can truly apologize for another your determination to be right and remain so robs a real human being of an outlet to which they can 1) grieve and 2) forgive and 3) reconcile.
Saying “I’m sorry” is perhaps the most Christian thing we can do whether you want to judge it false humility or not. In the absence of the perpetrators, whether they be dead or ignorant of their sin, a human body with the humility to stand in and say “I’m sorry for the pain they have caused” brings peace and healing to the afflicted and opens a space for the Holy Spirit to move.
I do not understand your insistence on being right just for being rights sake.
I wrote 52 as you were writing 51. Just more of the same….
Like I said, see 49.
If only everyone thought like you do, Chris L.
To sum it up, Chris L, I guess what I am saying is that I find your comments sorely lacking any sort of empathy or compassion towards the other, whomever that may be.
Chad,
Even God holds to the strict understanding of the letter.
Besides, what if Claiborne apologizes for me and I’m not sorry? Then what? Then he has put words in my mouth that are lies and meaningless because words apart from actions are meaningless.
You should read a book called The Sunflower. There is a powerful conversation at the end of the book about forgiveness–which is the sort of reverse of the apology. Most of the authors concluded that no one can offer forgiveness on behalf of another (humanly speaking). It makes me wonder if anyone even can offer an apology for another (humanly speaking).
I’m not trying to convince you to believe the way I do, but there is something to be said about recognizing the validity of the larger point being made which is that it is not Claiborne’s position to offer an apology on anyone’s behalf but his own.
That’s really all I’m saying. Sort of.
or, maybe you have already read The Sunflower. I didn’t mean to assume that you hadn’t. sorry about that.
And regardless of what you think Mr. English, 51 is a false dichotomy. Neither sanctimony nor victimology need be the case for apologizing on behalf of others.
When I have embraced a black brother or sister and said “I’m sorry” for the pain caused to them by my race it is not because I feel better than anyone or because I feel guilty for anything. I say it because I love them.
Apparently you have never experienced the peace and healing that comes from hearing someone then say, “Thank you for saying that – you are the first to ever say that and it helps heal a hole in my soul that has been there a very long time.”
You emit an aire of “I didn’t do anything to you so get over it.”
So what?
Let’s then assume “bull-horn” guy (for lack of a better name) goes on doing what he is doing. The person who heard the apology (the non-believer in this case) who later sees bull-horn guy will recall Claiborne saying “I’m sorry for that” and not judge ALL Christians based on what he or she sees in this one demonstration of street preaching.
MAYBE that person will think, “Hey, maybe all Christians aren’t like this smug street preacher who has nothing to say but scream, “TURN OR BURN!”
Would that not be a good?
And no, I have not read the Sunflower. I have little time to read anything these days apart from what is assigned reading for courses. Most of which, as you all know, is indoctrinating me into Islam.
well, i guess there was no point in saying “i’m so sorry” as I expressed my pain and empathy for particular issues of my last, like, every single session of pastoral care…
since the people in front of me are in major crisis about the value of the Church and God in their lives because of what people who are part of the Church and, by extension, represent God have done to them…
i don’t know what the principle expounded here gains me when i minister to such people and the many other de-churched and anti-church people that have been the primary focus of my ministry over the years.
i understand the basic premise…i “get” the idea of no single person having the weight to speak for everyone…but does that really matter in the face of pain and real hurt?
what is gained by standing strong on such an idea and getting huffy about it?
merry christmas!!!
The you do not know me. One of my “hot button” topics is the treatment of Native Americans – historically through today. I will stand at the front of any line to say “what America did – and still does, to a lesser extent – was completely wrong. I wish something could be done to reverse what happened with the taking of lands, the oppression and the breaking of treaties, but I do not know how it could be accomplished. I am willing to help as I can, even though I am Anglo.”
It would be empty and pointless for me to say “I am sorry”, because I am not guilty, but I have given of my time, talent and money to help out – and I don’t know of anything more than the willingness to act in righting past wrongs that would honestly speak to the past wrong. Simply apologizing for something one had no part in is false humility, by definition.
You are so completely right! The ends really do justify the means! I wish I’d thought of that.
The principles are not at conflict with the spirit of the letter, but they work in concert. The way of Jesus violates neither the spirit nor the letter of the law.
I find your lack of principles in your treatment of intentions and emotional outcomes as justification for violating the letter of the law to be deeply dissatisfying and troubling.
Well said, nathan.
Then, too, perhaps someone should apologize on behalf of all the Shane Claiborne’s of the world for their smug insistence that everything contrary to their way of life is wrong.
Here me unbelievers and non-believers and used to be believers who are not convinced that you are going to hell just because you have extra money at the end of the week: I apologize for people like Shane Claiborne who have offended you. I apologize for people like Chad who thinks you are guilty and cannot follow Jesus unless you embrace every leftist ideological political principal, and hate George W Bush.
I apologize to all conservative republicans for the way Christians like Shane Claiborne, Brian McClaren and Chad Holtz have treated you because you have money, are conservative and work for a Fortune 500 company. I am sorry they have made you feel you cannot follow Jesus.
But there’s good news! Jesus even let Zacheus keep his job after eating dinner at his house and didn’t demand Zacheus leave his money behind or quit working for Rome just to be his disciple.
How about that conversation Chad? Is that sort of apology OK too?
I only know what I read from your comments. I would not mistake you for an empathic or compassionate person. Sorry.
Jerry – if that is how you really feel, so be it.
However, that doesn’t sound like anything I have ever said or taught.
Oh well.
Nathan,
There is a difference between giving empathy in a time of distress, where “I’m so sorry” has a cultural meaning of “I know how you feel, and I am with you”, and where “I’m so sorry” has a specific meaning of apology. What Jerry’s dealing with in the OP is a specific apology, not a statement of empathy.
61. Who’s getting huffy?
If the person in front of you during pastoral counseling has issues with the church, then I would suggest you confront those issues head on and talk to them about grace.
You should talk to them about how the grace of Jesus doesn’t make us perfect, but that it makes us malleable. You should point them to the works of Philip Yancey and especially his book Soul Survivor.
You should look them in the eye and say, “Well, since you are angry about the church because the church harmed you…well who are you to sit in judgment? Have you hurt people? Cast the first stone.” No one is saying the church is perfect. No one is saying the church is without blame. No one is saying the church hasn’t done egregious things.
What I am saying is that it is arrogant to assume anyone has the right to apologize for the entire church (if (when) the pope did (does) it we would (are) be shocked). I might also suggest that anyone who has that much anger towards the church really needs to get a grip on their own sin first. Then, after they have been made perfect, they can sit in judgment for the sin of the church.
This is why we teach about grace and preach it and live it and share it. Living in humility does not mean what Shane Claiborne wrote in his first three or four paragraphs.
So who’s being huffy? There’s a better way to express what Claiborne wants to express: it’s called grace from first to last. If we can’t apologize for others, then we shouldn’t.
Chad,
Now perhaps you are understanding how I feel about Claiborne’s apology.
jerry
Jerry, you can’t be serious. Where is the grace you speak so freely of here?
I’ll share with you what I told a member of my church who read Claiborn’s Revolution book. He called feeling angst about what to do and felt like he should do more and maybe even move to India or some other mission field.
I told him that if he went to India the 4th graders he taught at his school every day would miss out on an incredible Christian witness. I told him that his wife and 3 kids would miss out on the incredible example he sets as a husband and father. I told him that our church would miss out on the wonderful ministry he does in music and Sunday school. Basically I affirmed him and relieved him of his guilt.
I don’t peddle guilt. Never have and never will.
But I still see this issue very differently than you and Chris L seem to see it.
71 – you misunderstand, then. I would not take offense because you have the audacity to apologize. I may take issue with whether or not the substance of your characterization of me is correct, but not with the apology.
FACT: There are Christians who get a lot of media coverage who peddle either a Jesus who is nothing more than fire insurance or a Jesus who wants nothing more than to make you healthy and wealthy.
FACT: Non-Christians do not read the Bible.
FACT: The only gospel most people will ever read is what they SEE in others.
FACT: The first fact (above) gets noticed by unbelievers – a lot.
—I don’t hear Clairborne apologizing for the above sort of people as if he thinks they are really sorry themselves. I hear him, rather, saying, “I’m sorry on behalf of the church for showing you a Jesus that might make you run away from rather than run to him. Why? Because if we really lived the way of Jesus and truly lifted him up, all of humanity would be drawn to him. Therefore, I am sorry for the ways people taking the name of Christ have treated you.”
FACT: Nonbelievers who hear the above will be more likely to listen to Shane than the bull-horn guy on the street.
One Sunday at my church (which btw, isn’t A/G now, I’m at different church now), the pastor had everyone pair up with a person of a different ethnicity/race and led us through a guided prayer. It did involve an apology/confession, and I actually found it to be a very powerful. Of course, when I confess to an African American brother, it does not make up for every painful thing he’s experienced, but I do believe it does something. I don’t think it is meaningless. I think simply having an attitude of humility can be helpful.
As far as Claiborne coming off with an air of moral superiority, I guess I never felt that way when reading him. I live in a university town, so I’ve certainly met my fair share of smug people who think they know best for everyone, and honestly, I never got that feeling when reading Claiborne’s books.
Agreed, Phil.
Now…..duck.
Applying Emergent Translator here…
FACT: There are Christians who get a lot of media coverage who peddle either a Jesus who is nothing more than fire insurance or a Jesus who wants nothing more than to make you healthy and wealthy Or a Jesus who will accept you even if you never turn to Him and place your faith in him alone, or a Jesus who accepts good people who worship Allah (or any other god)
FACT: Non-Christians do not read the Bible. Thats pretty arrogant- I know lots of non-christians, even atheists who read the Bible
FACT: The only gospel most people will ever read is what they SEE in others. Thats not the Gospel, that is a result or proof of the Gospel. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and it is spoken, read, and testified to by the Spirit.
FACT: The first fact (above) gets noticed by unbelievers – a lot.
—I don’t hear Clairborne apologizing for the above sort of people as if he thinks they are really sorry themselves. I hear him, rather, saying, “I’m sorry on behalf of the church for showing you a Jesus that might make you run away from rather than run to him. Why? Because if we really lived the way of Jesus and truly lifted him up, all of humanity would be drawn to him. Therefore, I am sorry for the ways people taking the name of Christ have treated you.” But obviously thats not me I am superior to all those other guys, cant you see how good we are at judging others for the way that they walk? I am superior to them because my brand of Christianity is so much more humble, see the clothes I made? Check out my mac book pro! I am better because I grow veggies in a toilet bowl. I am better because of where I live. I can apologize because I am morally superior!
FACT: Nonbelievers who hear the above will be more likely to listen to Shane than the bull-horn guy on the street. Because they love their ears to be tickled and affirmed for the works they do rather than the finished work of Christ.
If anyone questions the veracity of my facts in 74, see #77
I’m always amazed at the logic that says:
Judging is bad but now I’m gonna judge you for your judging. It’s baffling really.
Maybe the point is that we should just all faithfully walk out our calling in Christ, measured against scripture, and let the chips fall where they may.
79, right. And when we do that we won’t have to worry about speaking for other people as Mr Claiborne feels so inclined to do.
Phil, when I read Jesus for President I did get exactly the sense that you didn’t. I’m glad you didn’t, but I did. Claiborne had very few words for people on the ‘left’ who hated George W Bush, and very many words for people who did not.
I’m sorry that I have a different take on Claiborne, but one gets the idea that if one is not like him, one is not at all justified in what one is doing.
FACT: Chad doesn’t know what he’s talking about–except when it comes to football and the Steelers.
FACT: none of this will matter someday.
FACT: I have to get ready for worship.
Grace and peace guys. I’m out until much, much later. I hope you have a very, merry Christmas.
PS–Chad, of course I’m not serious. But there is a big difference between listening, empathizing, and working through issues with grace and apologizing for the entire church. One is possible, the other is not.
I find the umbrage of Claiborne’s unique apology to be…remarkable. And I also find the “Claiborne is self righteous and judgmental” also interesting since you must judge him to arrive at that.
Americans in general recoil at apologizing for anything, much less something that might not have technically been their fault. But followers of Jesus must not project such entrenchment, and in fact we should run to apologize if it means building redemptive bridges.
I remain amazed at the utter refusal to seize an opportunity for reaching out to mend inaccurate caricatures that the world has constructed, especially when their misunderstandings have come from the imperfect manifestations of Christ through people JUST LIKE YOU AND ME.
Again, I apologize for everyone including me.
Are you guys judging me? It sure seems like you are judging me.
Evaluating!
Merry Christmas John!
First as a gift then as a sacrifice. He is born he is risen.
#83
Amen.
He came as a helpless babe with the shadow of the cross over him, for us and for our salvation.
We serve a risen Savior, not a helpless babe in a manger. He lives today to make intercession for us! Hallelujah!
so, Jerry, basically you’re saying that when someone has real grievances with “the church”…the best pastoral response is “suck it up”…
hear me, friend. I don’t think what you’re saying is “off”…i just don’t think we get to dismiss people’s pain simply because they are sinners too…what you suggest is part of a later conversation…maybe. depending on the nature of the situation.
i think too, that as pastors, we do represent “The Church” to people…fair or not…we ARE the ones people go to when they have a problem with the Church…just because we don’t have a mechanism to make us the “official spokesperson” does not mean we aren’t going to have to function as one from time to time.
“wrong”? maybe. “unfair”? many times. reality? yep.
chris l,
i don’t think you’re taking into account the real dynamic that, as a pastor, we embody/represent the Church to a lot of people…it means, in some sense, we are the ones people go to for the sake of the whole Church.
not in some technical, “legal” sense of established “pope-ness”, but as a representative figure…
i think my “i’m sorry” carries both meanings…
I am so sorry that Jesus came into the world to save sinners- I know, because that sounds so judgmental, I mean, that means we are sinners! I am so sorry that God so loved the world that He gave. So sorry that Jesus suffered the penalty on our behalf, the full force of the wrath of God we deserve, making atonement for us, and rising again on the third day to make intercession for us on the right hand of the Father. I am so sorry He is our great High Priest! I am so sorry he opened the door to prayer for us before the Father! I am so sorry that He is coming again in glory to judge the living and the dead! I am so sorry for you, you must feel very judged. But please feel the mercy and the love and the grace of God that despite your sin you can be made guiltless because of the love of God!!!!
85- I think that sums it up well.
86- yuck.
Much of this thread reveals what is wrong with the church. We think way to highly of ourselves even while being wrapped in a personal cloak of humility.
“I am a great sinner personally, but I recoil aggressively at apologizing for something I did not do.”
If it means building a redemptive bridge to sinners who have been hurt by Christians or the image of the church, let us apologize in sackcloth and ashes with many tears.
pastorboy, what was the point of 86, other than to take the word of the thread – “sorry” – and use it in as mocking and irrelevant manner as possible?
Most certainly! After all, truth matters nothing so long as we make others feel good. Bravo!
“Building a redemptive bridge” is far deeper than making people “feel good”
Paul calls us to be ministers of reconciliation. Would you be so smug with him?
Reconciliation does not require lying or assuming something that is not yours to assume. What you describe isn’t really reconciliation, but using evil (through lies) to “good” ends. I’d rather find a way to honor both the truth and the need for healing, rather than choose the most expedient way available.
Man, Chris, you know I love you, but this truly sounds like something spoken by an engineer.
Of course we shouldn’t encourage people to be ruled by emotions, but I also think we have to realize that there are things such as memories and experiences that cause people to have a visceral reaction to any mention of the Church. So while my apologizing or confessing can’t change the past, it can open a door to let me into their life.
Phil,
I don’t think the situation should be ignored or treated insensitively. We’re treating this like it’s a choice between 1) I apologize (for something I didn’t do, but which hurt someone) to someone and this breaks down a wall that allows healing; or 2) I don’t apologize and that hurt goes unhealed, and the relationship is never reconciled.
I believe there is always a third way available, which would not require untruth on my part, but would also lead to reconciliation – if that is in God’s will.
Seriously, Chris, if I only knew Jesus based on your comments here I’d wonder if Jesus were compassionate or empathic at all.
Right now, we’re in a philosophical debate on how to properly handle a situation – compassion does not require that we be false, and empathy should not be manufactured. Owning sins that are not ours to own is a lazy short-cut, when we ought to be considering the truth and how to properly handle it, in empathy and compassion.
but, as people who make up “The Church”, Scripture tells us that we belong to each other…that we are one…the failings of the Church are part of my story…in some sense, they are my failings too…if someone needs to hear anew that WE are striving to reject those failings…then i don’t see that as a lazy short-cut…i see it as the down and dirty hard work of cutting a new path of Love.
only if i see myself, the individual, as primary when it comes to my relation to The Church, then it seems to me that there is something “horrible” about owning the failures of the Church.
but, if perchance the “individual” is not the primary expression of the Church…well…
and as far as Clairborne goes…as one who knows him…he does have a certain arrogance that he is oblivious to…but not when it comes to the point of this thread…
“he does have a certain arrogance that he is oblivious to”
I’m certainly glad I do not have that.
Perhaps it is his method of communication that is mistaken for arrogance? Or perhaps when one speaks correction to the church on that level perceived arrogance is difficult to eliminate? Or perhaps he is extremely arrogant and yet speaks God’s truth?
If you remove Claiborne from the subject, is there a substantial amount of spiritual challenge in the words? There is for me, and I realize he is very emergent. I hope I can always receive truth as truth without rejecting it because I have problems with the communicator.
#89
It was a combo comment; to address you and Chad. I do not think we need to clean Jesus up, and so I was imagining how Shane Claibourne would apologize for Jesus, cleaning him up, if you will.
cleaning the face of jesus is a figure of speach and you know what it means.
i have seen nothing in claiborne that deserves those words being put in his mouth.
isn’t it funny how people who claim that there are centuries of un-biblical theological accretions turn right around and deny that Jesus has been obscured by human beings and the accretions of the bad theology that is their deeds?
but i get it…if it’s the RCC, then christianity needs a “washing”…but if it’s them and their kind…well then Jesus has no need for improvement.
lovely allergy to honesty.
so much for believing in “The Truth”.
How can anyone argue with someone challenging the many historical sins commited in Jesus’ name, and offering a sincere apology for others to those that have been either wounded or deceived by those inaccurate representations?
And how can one agrue with someone challenging the hedonistic, self indulging, nationalistic, debt ridden, and western caricature of Jesus as exhibited by much of the western/American evangelical church?
I don’t get it.
To echo Nathan, I also personally know Shane and he would cringe at my defending him but…Shane is a radical (like John the Baptist) and that rubs culture (whether it be American culture or Western Christianity) the wrong way.
Two things specifically for you PB…
1) I can think of many things to call Shane, arrogant isn’t one of them.
2) It’s spelled “Claiborne” not Clairborne or Clairbourne. I know trivial but I can think of nothing more demeaning than messing up someones name. Especially when the correct spelling is so readily available.
Chris,
That may well be true. It still doesn’t give him the authority to apologize for anyone but himself. And doing so makes him sound, well, arrogant–regardless of whether he actually is or not.
jerry
“It still doesn’t give him the authority to apologize for anyone but himself.”
What authority would that be? And what authority did Paul have when he apologized for Onesimus?
“If he hath wronged thee, or oweth thee ought, put that on mine account;”
“And doing so makes him sound, well, arrogant”
All of us sound that way sometimes, and in fact, when we refuse to let someone apologize for us we can come across as arogant as well. Especailly when it seems to hit some nerve.
I apologize for Shane for apologizing.
These statements from Claiborne are very revealing and challenging.
“The more I have read the Bible and studied the life of Jesus, the more I have become convinced that Christianity spreads best not through force but through fascination. But over the past few decades our Christianity, at least here in the United States, has become less and less fascinating. We have given the atheists less and less to disbelieve.”
I would personally observe his observations are fairly reserved and understated when they are examined in the light of western Christianity. And to be accurate, isn’t that what it’s all about – pointing them to Jesus when they see our many imperfections?
I have apologized for my children on many occasions, and since we are supposed to be God’s family, why would apologizing for each other be wrong? I am sure Shane has misrepresented Jesus and unecessarily offended unbelievers.
And if someone who was offended by Shane used that as an excuse to me as to why they doubt Christ, I would gladly and sincerely apologize for Shane while believing he did not mean it, and while also communicating to that person how imperfect I am as well.
Thats just the point. He didn’t apologize for how imperfect he was, just how imperfect the blood-bought church is.
I am absolutely sure he was including himself. It is my personal experience that the closer I get to Christ, and even the more committed I am to serving Him, the clearer I see my own sins in quantity and quality.
Exactly. I’m certain that there are others like me who vacillate in their commitment and conviction towards Christ. If not then I’ll speak solely for myself. and Rick
When I’m closest to Christ the evidence of my fruit (Love, Patience, Kindness, etc…) is very visible as well as my inadequacy. When I’m not close to Christ pride, arrogance, anger, frustration rule the day.
As for 107, there is a huge difference between apologizing for your children (who may or may not be old enough or wise enough to know the difference between right and wrong) and apologizing for western christianity. And, to be sure, if my sons foul up, i teach them that it is their responsibility to apologize for themselves–that’s called accountability. Something about the sins of the son, etc.
Besides, as I have said, there is much I agree with in Claiborne’s article. And, as someone who is in the unfortunate position of not knowing him personally, I will say that if he had left out the first couple of paragraphs, the article would have been fine. But since I don’t know him personally, I will just say that the first couple of paragraphs make me think that he doesn’t really understand the church and grace and imperfection and he sounds arrogant.
Kind of like, “Oh, those silly street preachers are so naive about what REAL christianity is. But some of us are so close to Jesus, some of us produce so much fruit, that we can humbly apologize for those other ‘christians’ who do things that we disapprove of, things that make you uncomfortable because they confront you with your sin. We are sorry that you have had to hear them.”
Yeah, sorry we can’t all be like that. I apologize that some of us are so fruitless to Mr Claiborne.
“Kind of like, “Oh, those silly street preachers are so naive about what REAL christianity is. But some of us are so close to Jesus, some of us produce so much fruit, that we can humbly apologize for those other ‘christians’ who do things that we disapprove of, things that make you uncomfortable because they confront you with your sin. We are sorry that you have had to hear them.””
Bullhorn guy?
Jerry, the thing is, if he “kinda like” actually said what you are “kinda like” saying, then your gripe would be legit. Problem is, this is not what he said.
And as Rick has rightly pointed out, where was this indignation when Bell did Bullhorn Guy? I heard several of the ODM sites (with the exception of this site) making much of the same arguments you and Chris L are making.
Why does Bell get a free pass?
Out of curiosity I listened to Bullhorn Guy again just now. He’s sayin the same thing Shane is (I agree with both). In fact, Bell is arguably more insistent that “that” way is wrong (leaving one to conclude that his way, obviously, is “right”).
Certain people get “charitable” readings, and certain people do not.
I do not have the code, though.
I know all about non-charitable readings
I believe the code is written on my forehead
This thread is one of the more confounding and surprising to me. I cannot understand the umbrage taken at Claiborne’s well meaning apology. You know me, and I will use strong language when I feel redemptive truths are being diluted.
But I have no problem with someone identifying the behaviors of believers, me included, that misrepresent Christ and are a stumblingblock to unbelievers. Again, I scratch my head.
113 Comments before Rob Bell was mentioned, and it is not even by me.
I, for one, was introduced to Bell through Bullhorn Guy Nooma. I guess that says a lot.
I take umbrage at the charachature of street preachers put together by Bell and by Shane Claibourne.
Street preaching is commendable depending on what is being preached.
#119 If you are speaking about Phelps, and the sinless perfection guys, I am with you.
Anybody who preaches law and gospel in an understandable and winsome way as possible is to be commended. It is not an easy thing to do.
There is no “law” anymore.
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved!”
(The street preacher Paul)
Law cuts the scar tissue around the sin- hardened heart, providing with the power of the Holy Spirit access to how God sees us in truth. The law is a mirror, a tutor, a diagnostic tool to show us our need for salvation.
At that point, we can trust Christ alone for our salvation, as He draws us to Himself, as we are able, because of His enableing, to understand those words of truth.
I have two reasons to reject that template.
1. The Scriptures.
2. My salvation experience.
In the mouth of two witnesses and all that jazz.
1. The Scriptures
Jesus used the Law
Peter used the Law
Paul used the Law
James used the Law
God wrote the law on the heart
As Paul says in 1 Timothy 1 ‘The law is good, if it is used lawfully’
2. My salvation experience
I was raised in a church (Episcopal) and was taught that I was okay as long as I was baptized, confirmed, and a member in good standing. It was when the law was brought to bear on my conscience, and the announcement that it was the reason Jesus died, because I was a sinner that needed salvation, the lights turned on and I (by Gods grace) was able to believe on the Lord Jesus alone- not my works- not my church- for salvation.
In the mouth of two witnesses and all that punk rock.
The point of “Bullhorn”, though, is not to apologize on behalf of the Bullhorn guy…
That goes to my earlier point – there are ways to go about empathizing without bearing false witness (i.e. apologizing for something that is not your to apologize for…). I don’t think Jerry or I disagreed with Claiborne’s view of the negative impact of “Bullhorn Guys” on the image of Christ and the Kingdom – just with his apologizing for something that was not his to apologize for.
Actually, he was sending Onesimus (a runaway slave) back to his master with a plea for his master (Philemon) to forgive him. Since Onesimus, himself, was bearing the letter, and working in concert with Paul, you’re making an apples-to-carrots comparison.
Apologizing for something that is not yours to own – aside from the sheer arrogance involved – is also bearing false witness, claiming something not yours. Again, the ends do not justify the illegitimate means.
C-L-A-I-B-O-R-N-E
First take umbrage with a caricature of street preaching. Second recognize that Shane doesn’t have a problem with street preaching, heck he’s done it. Nor is his article an indictment or a caricature, he actual witnessed the guy. His article is about message and not method.
Well that and the fact that its an article from a secular magazine about a brother in Christ. Where his words are being parsed and evaluated from a perspective that is far removed from the man himself. Sounds a little like…????
Yes, it’s kind of like an ODM demanding an apology from someone who hasn’t done anything wrong. Except that here it is an ODM apologizing for something that is not his to apologize.
There is no umbrage. I have made a point that I don’t think it is Claiborne’s responsibility to apologize for anyone other than himself. Furthermore, the very fact that it was in a ’secular magazine’ and Claiborne was criticizing a ‘brother in Christ’ also speaks volumes, doesn’t it Chris?
I’m surprised that can’t see this point in your rush to defend someone who would be appalled that you are defending him.
And since when do you care whose words are parsed and whose words are not parsed? And what does this mean, “a perspective that is far removed from the man himself”? I’m talking about an article he wrote. Oh, but you know him personally so that absolves him of any wrong and justifies his position at all times. Nice.
And let me say this again, for the record: I don’t have an issue with much after the first couple of paragraphs where Claiborne arrogantly assumed it was his right to apologize on behalf of others. He doesn’t have that right.
Rick, frankly, I’m astounded that you are rushing to Claiborne’s defense.
“well meaning apology…”
Yes, well, we certainly understand the benefits of ‘well meaning’ don’t we?
Furthermore, I don’t really care how well meaning it was. It wasn’t his place to offer it. He no more speaks for me than Pope Benedict does.
You know what else is amazing is that I said more than once in my post that I admire much of what Claiborne teaches and believes and does with his faith. Yet there is so much umbrage that I disagree he has the right to apologize for me or for Christians in general.
I respect your right to disagree with me, but some of you seem to think this is a personal animosity I have against Claiborne and if you read my post again you will see that is clearly not the case.
“He no more speaks for me than Pope Benedict does.”
I think Claiborne is speaking for himself. If an unbeliever to whom you were witnessing had read some ODM sites and was sharing his outrage concerning their tone and language, would you give an apology to him for the ODMs and explain that their projections do not represent Christ?
I have done that with men like Hinn, Oral Roberts, and others. I apologized and used that as a bridge to explain “All have sinned and fall short…”.
Jerry, I’m not sure where your hositility is coming from but it seems misplaced.
I’ve read Shane’s article a couple times now and I still don’t what all the huff is over. For starters, he uses inclusive pronouns (us, our, we) and is obviously just trying to reach out to those who have been hurt or turned off by the “turn and burn” messages that are heard on the streets more than any other.
The truth is, WE in the church are often the biggest obstacle to people coming to Christ. We should be on our knees saying we are sorry if it means opening up pathways for grace.
re:125 and bullhorn guy, this is from the OP:
Bell was certainly critical of “fellow believers” who were doing the same thing Shane was worried was offending nonbelievers.
Yet Bell gets a free pass.
For an explanation why, see #115
The irony is that the original “mission” of this blog was set up to be critical of “fellow believers” who were damaging the image of the faith from “within.” This site has been, more or less, an “apology” to those who read their stuff and assume that is “the face of Jesus.”
Sadly, it seems a site like the old CRN.info might need to be started for those who read PPP.
“This site has been, more or less, an “apology” to those who read their stuff and assume that is “the face of Jesus.””
A interesting observation.
Bell was critical of them, but did not give an apology on their behalf. That’s the key difference I’ve cited. Being critical is one thing (which I don’t have a problem with), but apologizing on their behalf (as Claiborne has done) or casting them out of the kingdom for things that are not out of bounds of orthodoxy (i.e. making personal convictions into cross-cultural absolutes – which is the “ministry” of ODM’s) are completely different.
Chad,
I’m not sure where you get hostility, but I’m not sure it is hostility as much as it is incredulity.
To your point, where have I given Bell a pass on Bullhorn guy? The difference between Bell and Claiborne is that Bell was speaking to Bullhorn guy, and Claiborne was speaking to unbelievers about Bullhorn guy.
That, my friend, is a big, big difference.
jerry
135–I don’t recall anyone here ever apologizing to unbelievers for something that someone else has written–whether and ODM or PB or Chad or Rick.
This is a place where we talk about Jesus and Scripture and debate the pros and cons of this or that point of view. I’d have to go back through my archives of what I’ve written here, but I seriously doubt I have ever apologized for anyone but myself.
And if I did, I am sorry and I shouldn’t have done it.
Chad, I don’t know where all this hostility is coming from. I mean, if you think it is OK to apologize one behalf of others, by all means do so. I think your hostility towards my point of view is misplaced.
jerry
PS–I’m not opposed to Claiborne. I’m opposed to the way he speaks to unbelievers about believers. There’s a mountain of difference.
You don’t have to actually say “I’m sorry” to be apologizing. The very fact that this site exists (or began) was to in essence say “We are sorry” for the way Christ is portrayed by others. Whether or not you actually write or mouth the words, “I’m sorry” is a moot point.
Same with Bell. I find it hard to believe that had Bell interjected at any point in his monologue, “Where bullhorn has hurt you, I am sorry,” that you guys would be up in arms. That fact is, the entire tenor of his piece was saying exactly that.
Seems rather arbitrary to get hung up over a mere apology. If it doesn’t apply to you – so be it.