We had Shane Claiborne in chapel today, with a Q & A session this afternoon. Here's the mp3 of it. A significant portion of the campus read his The Irresistible Revolution: living as an ordinary radical this summer. All the proceeds go to the poor.
I'm about half way through and find it a very readable and attention holding book. I hope I can get my teenage step daughters to read it. If you want to know what the evangelical youth of the next generation look like, read this book.
Claiborne is a breath of fresh air. Yes, we all know that he represents one end of the spectrum. He reminds me of the Jesus People in Chicago in the 60's. I don't agree with all his positions.
But he is far more right than wrong, I firmly believe. It is a matter of the gospel and the message of Jesus in the gospels. Frankly, I can't even get into the mind of a Christian who gets angry about a guy like this one. What was the fuss at that other college that ended up cancelling him? Because he has dredlocks? Really! How can anyone with the heart of Christ find this man offensive if they've really listened to him?
I shouldn't assume you know his message. He is all about the simple life and giving away everything we have to give to those in need. He has a bit of the Barna perspective on the church, but we need to hear what he has to say.
There is a broader issue at work when people get upset at visitors like Claiborne... or at me for even thinking about voting for a Democrat. Tons of Christian colleges were founded in the late 1800's/early 1900's to withdraw from developments in broader Christian culture and its educational systems, to insulate our children and, to be honest, to indoctrinate them in our beliefs.
Most such groups did not have the clout or the power to carve a space for themselves at the broader educational table. These Christian groups were "group cultures" whose goal was not to teach critical thinking but to teach their children the beliefs and practices of their group.
There are still groups of this sort. But it is harder and harder for them to insulate themselves from the thoughts of other groups, especially with the internet and satellite TV. You almost have to build a compound these days.
And a place like IWU is too big to have such uniformity. Good grief, I'm not even sure that half of our students are even Wesleyans any more. Teaching students to memorize a set of beliefs and practices thus is ineffective preparation for the world. They need to know how to think and weigh things. And one of the most effective ways to do that is to bring thought leaders for them to engage and critique. You know, teach them to fish rather than giving them fish.
So you shouldn't think that my students blindly accept whatever I say on whatever topic. I encourage them to disagree or at least probe and question. I serve the truth and where I am wrong (and surely I am on many things even though I don't know it), I serve the truth by fostering the conflict of ideas in which we hope the truth will overall emerge the victor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Thanks for this post. I just got an e-mail from a long time friend, (back when I was Chariasmatic), that shared a concern about YWAM in Inda (YWAM is Youth With a Mission).
In the e-mail, it requested prayer for YWAM India, as a the most radical State in India had been threatening YWAM. The leaders went on about thier business, untill a radical Hindu priest and 4 others who were "reconverting" others back to Hinduism, were gunned down and killed. Christians were blamed. The The Good News Club in Ossisma has been attacked and they have been in seclusion for 4 days. Churches have been burned, etc...
The point in telling you all of this is that international relations has to understand the differences in culture where it concern religion. There is no exclusivity when it concerns claims about God. When religions try to convert, there is a cultural dissoanance.
In the early Church, the intellectual dissonance, of Jesus death, was resolved in what we now have as Scritpture, which has brought about our understanding of Christian faith. Resolution of intellectual dissonance to Jesus death and burial was what the Chruch theologizing was about...and it is about bringing hope within hopeless conditions...Other religious traditions are built around understandings of God that are part and parcel of the culture. We cannot convert another from ther religious heritage without creating cultural dissonance. So, what are we to do? How are we to bring resolution to cultural dissonance in our world?
Jesus was the epitome of how one comes to universality of humanity's importance and what was universal about God's image. But, culture has yet to understand its unity in diverisity position, at least where I am concerned...
Shane Claiborne's rendiition is to bring a cultural revolution that rexolves the distinctions of culture around the Scriptures understanding of Acts 2. I think this is far too naive and simplistic. That is my opinion...
As for Barna leanings, Shane comes out of United Methodism in Tennessee. Then off with Christian Peacemaker Teams in Iraq. All over the place, and certainly has some anti'establishment in him, but he´s very ecumenical and committed to submitting to the church... however a protestant does that.
Did he say anything about our $20 million chapel? ;)
Adam, he might in his next book... or stop :-)
You're alluding to the $100,000 plus stained glass window of his home church in Tennessee he mentions in the book, right? :-)
nice. looking forward to hearing the mp3.
Wait til you read Jesus for President...kind of makes his 1st book seem subtle.
I will give the mp3 a listen when it's posted
Jesus For president is a bit more "radical" than Ordinary Radicals but still very good. Reading Claiborne has opened my mind and helped me think about a l,ot of things. Then his newest book comes out "Becoming the Answer to Our Prayers: Prayer for Ordinary Radicals" Really opens things up. I highly recommend it.
How did the student body/staff/faculty/administration respond?
I'm a student here at IWU...sophomore religion/philosophy and bib. lit. double major
I found Claiborne's message interesting. I came to chapel yesterday with some skepticism based on what I heard about him. I have not read his book, but have read several of its reviews on Amazon.com.
After getting over the initial shock of his wardrobe and hair style (and need I mention his presentation as backwoods hillbilly sort...from his accent and speech), I was able to appreciate his message. But isn't it funny how the dean of chapel's office holds a different standard for others who speak in chapel? I thought it is a requirement that everyone on stage be in "dressy" attire...nice shirt, tucked into nice pants; dresses or dress slacks etc. Yet Claiborne can where baggy pants, a t-shirt, and unkempt hair. Just something to chew on...
For me, I could appreciate Claiborne's dedication to the poor and his openness to the will of God. I really believe that a lot of his ministry is rightly from God. I admire the work that he is doing. However, where I came in conflict with him is his overt criticism of America and the rich. He comes across as anti-American and anti-rich...embracing what seems to me to be Marxist ideals. This is way his message came across for me anyway. I have not read the book, so I am not entirely certain if this is where he stands. Overall, it was a good chapel. I am grateful for how IWU gives us opportunity to think critically about key issues. We need a visit from other ends of the spectrum every once in a while.
Phil,
There is nothing unbiblical about being anti-American, right? Anymore so than being anti-Iranian.
And I think if you look at his ¨anti-rich¨ stance, you will find that he has plenty of scriptural/historical support without being condemning or pietistic about his choosing simplicity. He holds his values strongly (he´s sassy) without being a jerk - which I think is more than most evangelicals (or other figures) in the spotlight.
I was just responding to Dan with a student's response. Like I said, I have not read the book and do not know his entire theology. I was only going by what I heard from the man on stage.
My impression was that he is anti-American. Though there may not be any biblical support that one ought to support one's country, I think our government and its leaders do deserve some respect no matter how wrong they may be. We are called to pray for our leaders. And I think it is proper to be loyal to one's country (meaning love her no matter what, but not necessarily agree with everything she does). Extra-biblical? perhaps. But still right? most always.
As far as anti-rich/egalitarian economics...I do not think the Bible supports a sort of "theistic marxism-socialism." This seems to be what he is in favor of...but again, just going on what I heard from the man on the stage.
If the position is extra-biblical--which it undoubtedly is--then the position is justifed on extra-biblical grounds. However, if one finds those extra-biblical grounds problematic, then one is not being "unbiblical" by rejecting them.
You can't have your cake and eat it too :). You say "maybe" support of country is extra-biblical, but it certainly is extra-biblical. So, what reason do you have to cast doubt on Shane Claiborne's views simply because "there is no biblical support" for it?
There MAY be biblical principles that indirectly relate to economic or socio-political issues, but they are developed through other types of disciplines, like philosophical ones.
Post a Comment