Heard this before??? Any monkey with a typewriter could produce such dribble. Such an excellent example of why the Emergent Church is not relevant could not have come if Brian McClaren himself sent us some heresy.
The author of this masterwork, Shane Claiborne, is the quintessential post-modern moron. His initial observation does indeed carry a degree of credence. Claiborne notes that in America being a follower of Christ has become a culture that is in many ways devoid of its namesake. Yet his solution for this only plunges America further into a cultural quaqmire and even further from real truth. Like many other emergent ex-potheads, Claiborne advocates a "revolution." Certainly, if enough textual gymnastics are done, one could arrive at this term. Yet taking up our cross for Claiborne is tied to philanthropic works. In claiming that Christ was homeless he has reduced the pristine Savior God being incarnate on earth and has conjured up a view of Christ sleeping on cardboard with a scruffy beard and smelling of urine. I do not mean to demean the homeless. They can be at times victims of circumstances I cannot even pretend to comprehend. Yet is this not a wonderful, and by wonderful I mean wonderfully non-biblical, misuse of terms. Indeed the earth was not Christ's home, as it is not ours. But for a man who works among the homeless in Philadelphia, why relate Almighty God to their struggles in a way that debases Him.
Our esteemed author has indulged in such escapades as working alongside Mother Theresa among the poor and travelling to Iraq. I applaud such efforts on his part, but does this make him qualified to give insight into the life of Christ? As odd as this sounds, perhaps a studied look at the life of Christ from oh, say...Scripture, might actually carry more force.
Fundamental Christians are far too comfortable in their American Christianity and do far too little to influence the destitute and hurting around them. But this touting of an organic, post-modern, psuedo-revolutionary ideal is not the answer. Christ didn't garden and the revolution that He calls men to is not to live differently because that is what is cool among emerging Christinans but because we are not of this world and should not love the things in it. We love others, not because my steroid free tomatoes tell me too, but because Christ first loved me...how's that for revolutionary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Here! Here! I am of accord. In fact, I read an article just today in the Jerusalem Post about the book "The Year of Living Biblically." I had heard John Tesh, our finest theologian to date, advocate this book on the radio. He even suggested that we would benefit in our spiritual growth because of it. How interesting to find out then from a Jewish newspaper that this book is not Christian at all. Rather, it's a guy with crooked teeth and a beard trying to follow the O.T. law in an effort to prove the absurdity of trying to do so by modern day Jews and Christians. Perhaps, if our literacy would allow, someday our "Christian" radio hosts would read past the front cover with some sense of criticism. Hmmm... I guess there's no room for criticism in K-LOVE though. They're positive and encouraging.
As Jared, I'm tired of such pseudo-spiritualism usurping the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Maybe if people spent more time exegeting Scripture for what it is than for what culture desires, we'd be in better shape.
I need to still read this article, but knowing the author I comment thusly:
His blue old-style Buick has a bumper sticker that reads: God is Green. That might shed some light unto this emergent hippy. Maybe God is green, but perhaps he is white. Acutally God is Jewish. He revealed Himself in Christ, who is the radiance of the glory of God and exact imprint of his nature, who upholds the universe by the word of his power (Heb. 1:3). God's relationship to the universe through Christ is first as Creator and Sustainer, we worship him for this. Christ does not climb up smokestacks or tie himself to trees (actually he did die for us on a tree). In his mercy he holds the universe together and does not consume us, like He will the earth with fire in the last day. First, let us see God as revealed in Christ and also worship Him through Christ for what He is: Love, Light, Holy, Life, Truth, Mercy, Grace, Justice, Wrath. I dare you to put on your car: God is Wrath.
Thank you for that edgy review ol' chap. A few notes:
1 - Nice catch on the "revolution" idea. It would seem Christ is more interested in redemption than revolution. Perhaps pop-Christianity has latched on to "revolution" because that involves and focuses on us a bit more while "redemption" seems a bit out of our grasp as God restores the Creation through Christ.
2 - The difficulty for us cynics comes because of the dose of veritas in this "revolution" movement. Contemporary ultra-conservatives tend to be nervous about the physical world. A lack of stewardship and responsible dominion of the earth has lead the "greens" to focus on the earth and social issues - in most part, physical issues. After doing some reading of "Heaven is a Place on Earth" by Wittmer and some talking with Mr. Shu, I have realized that a responsible position toward the earth with proper Biblical ballast is in order. This does not mean neglect or obsession. It simply calls for a Biblically considerate fulfillment of the mandate to have dominion over the earth.
3 - While Christ certainly wasn't a "gardner" (as you pointed out), Adam obviously was. And Christ was a carpenter for more years than He publicly ministered. And while time points to the significance of work and dominion roles (like carpentry), Scripture clearly highlights Christ redemptive work in His ministry by the Spirit for our righteousness and redemption of all things (things, not people). And while Paul may have fashioned tents, his main work was the ministry of the Gospel. The tents aren't bad or a waste of time, but they aren't the means of ministry for our weapons of warfare are not carnal or pertaining to the flesh or the physical. So no, we don't glory in the garden but boast only in the cross. The garden isn't the blessing or the thing to be blessed. It provides an occasion to participate in what God is doing in Christ as we minister the Gospel to the cursed world to bring about redemption until the re-creation (redemption) of all things.
I was talking to Josh about his comment, and I felt it necessary to make a distinction, although it might be obvious. The problem with "God is Green" is not necessarily the word "green" but "God". God gave us the earth so that we may exercise dominion over it. Maybe we should be green, but I think it wrong to atribute this quality to God. I have thought with my weary brain about Scripture that would clarify God's relationship to earth. We know he created it, he will destroy it by fire, he will redeem it, he has sovereignity over every atom, and holds it together by the Word of his power. He brings the seasons so that we can have food; He even provides food for the animals. When speaking about God relating to His creation, the focus of the Bible is God relating to man, God redeeming man from sin. Yes, he will redeem creation, but the focus is God redeeming us for the purpose of His glory. All creation glorifies God, but only we can enjoy and worship Him, so He is even more glorified.
Post a Comment