It’s a difficult book, but one worth reading — more than once.

(ps: I certainly hope no one thinks that we are mad at each other in comments in this blog, and I hope that no one gets mad at each other over comments/posts in this blog.)

@Ryan: that’s exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks for saying it better and nicer.

@Zach: I apologize for my rant. I had tried to be calm in my actual post, and then let my passion get the best of me in my following comment and made some overly harsh accusations, based on my very faulty memory. I’m very happy to hear those things from Claiborne, that he hasn’t defenstrated the church, or conversion. But my impression from his book and this article were that those things were the case. The general thing I took away from his book was this: this guy has some good points about the fact that we are often so caught up in our middle-class American bubble that we overlook the poor and hurting among us and overseas; BUT, he’s got some major doctrinal issues. What I was trying to do with my edited article was show how some of those doctrinal issues could be corrected. On second consideration, I may have done a little too much editing, though.

I’d like to sit down and talk about this in more detail, but I don’t want to argue about it over a comment thread, because then other people might think we’re mad at each other, and then misunderstand the differences we have, and then things will just get muddy fast.

But I will say this, in closing (everyone else can feel free to keep going, but this is the last thing I’m going to say): There are a lot of areas where in order to keep balance someone has to go to the extreme. That is often appropriate. But in matters of doctrine, that is not the case at all. When the waves of new doctrine sweep a huge group of people (mainstream conservative evangelicals?) to a far end of the doctrinal spectrum and into error, the way to correct it is not to swing to the complete opposite side. This will only result in leading a (probably younger) and fresh group of people astray, into the opposite error. No, the way to correct bad doctrine is simply to unashamedly and incessantly preach sound (also translated “healthy”) doctrine (see 1 and 2 Timothy). When people get judgmental and legalistic and cold in their religion, what they need to hear is the cross preached. When people hear prosperity gospel or social gospel and get too feel good and earth-bound in their religion, what they need to hear is the cross preached. Because at the center of a healthy Christian walk is sound doctrine, and at the center of healthy doctrine is the Cross. Forever and always, from the Gospels to the epistles to the early church to the Reformation to now: the Cross is central.

I came across this while rereading some of The Irresistible Revolution; “So many of the circles we are in are packed with young visionaries who could use some good eldership. So to the young ‘uns: we have too remind ourselves to stay anchored in the church, for we need roots and wisdom.”

It was wrong of me to say that Claiborne doesn’t emphasize the cross. He may not have broken down the gospel for everyone in his article that I posted, but his entire point in apologizing for the Church is that Christians so often don’t look like Christ, i.e. showing God’s love to other people. He is trying to dispel the myth that God is about works; that you can earn God’s love like we Christians make it seem so often. He says, “The Bible that I read says that God did not send Jesus to condemn the world but to save it… it was because ‘God so loved the world.’” Though he does not mention here the way (death on the cross) that Jesus saved the world, this is the exception, in my experience.

On the website for The Simple Way, a halfway house type community that Claiborne is a part of says in their “foundations” section, “We believe that people are created in the image of God. We believe people are created to love and to be loved. We also believe that humanity is fallen, and Jesus died and rose in order to save humanity. Humans are incapable of holiness and perfect love without the sacrifice of Jesus.” So there’s the cross. (I highly recommend going and reading some of the stuff on The Simple Way’s website (www.thesimpleway.org), it’s really interesting.

Isn’t what we mean by “God’s love” the fact that He was willing to die for our sacrifices, though?

Although i haven’t read Clairborne (and so maybe im taking your quote completely out of context) I have to agree that He can’t preach love unless he highlights what Jesus did on the cross for us. “but God shows His love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”(Romans 5:8) Many other religions talk about a loving God, but the fact that Jesus came to die in our stead sets Christianity apart. Without addressing the redeeming and sacrificial love that Jesus displayed on the cross, then how can he (Clairborne) expect to impact others with love? You talked about how Christians need to be aware of how God loves people “where they are” –what better example than how Jesus died for us WHILE we were sinners? I don’t think any other biblical reference or parable better underlines love than the truth that Jesus died on the cross so that the sinful, the condemned, the broken could experience God’s love. I think it is very dangerous to proclaim any doctrine without heavily emphasizing Jesus’ death (and resurrection, of course!)

Personally, I’m coming from this in a Christian context. Let me explain what I mean: if Christians really understood His love (that He pours out on us through the blood of Jesus in spite of our sin – I figured that that would be implied in me saying that, but apparently I need to elaborate on what I mean by “God loves you” every time that I say it), then we’d act differently. One of the ways His love is best illuminated is when we see and feel the darkness of our sin and depravity.

I think that THAT is where a lot of us don’t get it. We don’t think that we are bad people, and so we therefore don’t understand His love.

His love is so much more powerful; it seems like it’s easy and natural to love really good, moral people who go to church. But it doesn’t seem easy or natural to love someone who does all those things but then commits sin after sin in their hearts, covets, hates, holds themselves up to be better than everyone else, and judges every person they see.

That’s what happened to me, at least.

When I realized His love in the context of my depravity, it changed me forever.

But a lot of us in the Christian culture HAVEN’T been changed my His love. We know a lot ABOUT Him, and know the right things to say, but we aren’t spending time with Jesus and doing simple things like sharing the Gospel and sitting with people who are sitting by themselves in the cafeteria. (And this is not a hit on any of you guys – I say this generically, and more out of conviction in my own heart.)

That’s where I’M coming from. People who have received deeper revelation of His love won’t go around just telling people God loves them and that they go to church, and you should go to church too (which is what I’m assuming you are referring to in a sense). When we understand the love of God, we make disciples. We share the Gospel. We point people to the Word. We help people pursue holiness with us. We CHANGE and see people changed. ALL for the purpose of, firstly, Knowing Him, and secondly to Make Him Known.

I see this EVERYWHERE and it breaks my heart. I think so often Christians quote “let your light shine before men so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16), focusing on living a good life, expecting their works to point others to Christ. What they don’t understand, however, is that unless we come right out and say that Jesus is the reason for our actions, that His sacrifice and redeeming love has transformed our lives (virtually, we need to “connect the dots” for people), then people are just going to see our deeds and attribute it to our goodness. Actions may speak LOUDER than words, but they allow a lot of room for interpretation, and in a matter of eternal life and eternal damnation, we cannot afford to let others misinterpret the gospel.

I understand your beef with him. It makes sense. He obviously does not make it his top priority to tell everyone about the awesome testimony of Jesus’ death on the cross, and I agree that he doesn’t reference it very much.

The problem is, I don’t think I’ve really read any of his stuff where his main purpose is to convert people. I think his main purpose is to try to get Christians to realize that the Church is turning into something that it wasn’t meant to be in many cases. I think he is trying to tell people, who have heard all their lives what will happen if you don’t go to church or become a christian, that God loves them more than they can even imagine, and that the church is wrong in saying (or just implying) that you have to be perfect before you become a Christian or that God isn’t completely ready to meet you where you are and to start from there.

Even though I don’t think that his main purpose is to convert people, I do think he wants to see people come to Christ. I think you’re approaching Claiborne as an evangelist specifically, and maybe he is, but I think even if that is his main purpose, he isn’t trying to reach people who are full of themselves and need to be slapped in the face by the gospel. He is trying to reach people who have been slapped in the face and knocked to the ground by the world. People who need to know that they are loved by the perfect God of the universe and that He doesn’t expect them to be perfect, He just expects them to be content in His all-encompassing love.

I don’t think his lack of emphasis on the cross is necessarily a “lack of sound doctrine.” Also, why can’t his burden for what he sees as the mislead Church be out of love for it? Why do you assume that it is out of hate? (or at least that seems to be what you are implying, Trey.)

I realize that I have slightly said exactly what you said you didn’t want to hear, but why can’t we preach the Gospel from different angles? I think different parts of the Gospel are the most unbelievable and likely to bring about conversion for different people.

Also, I think this is kind of a redundant comment, so sorry about that… :\