For the past two weeks I’ve been pondering what to say in response to Shane Claiborne’s essay in Esquire magazine, “What If Jesus Meant All That Stuff?” I met Shane a few months ago and was very impressed by him, so I was excited then to see that Esquire chose him as the “Radical Christian” for their 2009 list of the “Best and Brightest.”
I don’t always agree with Shane’s solutions, but I do share his passion for social issues. We also agree—I think completely—on the need to share the good news of Christ with a lost world. When I read his essay, though, I was disappointed. There was no requirement for him to use the essay to share the gospel, but he did—and I think he flubbed it.
The realization that I likely would not have done any better, though, made me hesitant to say anything about it. Fortunately, blogging is one of the few areas in life where procrastination can be beneficial. Usually if I put off writing something long enough, someone else will come along and say it better than I ever could have. Such is the case with Kevin DeYoung’s latest post. Although he doesn’t mention Shane by name (I don’t even know if Kevin read his article) he addresses all of the concerns I had with this type of gospel presentation.
Have you heard the New Gospel? It’s not been codified. It’s not owned by any one person or movement. But it is increasingly common.
The New Gospel generally has four parts to it.
It usually starts with an apology: “I’m sorry for my fellow Christians. I understand why you hate Christianity. It’s like that thing Ghandi said, ‘why can’t the Christians be more like their Christ?’ Christians are hypocritical, judgmental, and self-righteous. I know we screwed up with the Crusades, slavery, and the Witch Trials. All I can say is: I apologize. We’ve not give you a reason to believe.”
I’ll likely have more to say on this later but for now I’d encourage to read the rest of Kevin’s excellent post.
November 24th, 2009 | 1:58 pm | #1
I have a problem with the kind of theology that Shane Claiborne preaches. Nowhere does he mention the fact that Christ died for our sins. That is KEY in the gospel that I believe in. I do believe that God is love, but there is more to the gospel than that. In addition, when people see the gospel in purely social justice terms, there is a problem. Jesus did exhort us to taking on social issues, but that is not the main message of the gospel. From what I read of Claiborne’s article, he left out the hard part of the gospel: the need for us to turn away from our sin and repent.
November 24th, 2009 | 2:20 pm | #2
I think you’d be hard pressed to call that a gospel presentation.
I think, however, that putting social issues at the head of the line will create that kind of gospel, even unintentionally.
Social issues, while hugely important (we are commanded to love, after all), are secondary, by a huge margin.
November 24th, 2009 | 3:16 pm | #3
DeYoung nails it.
November 25th, 2009 | 12:28 am | #4
DeYoung: “The New Gospel meets people where they are and leaves them there.”
This is probably true. But what of the Old-Gospelers who won’t meet people where they are? What of the O-Gers who themselves seem quite happy where they are, thank you very much? KWIM?
I did not become a Christian by the leading of the latter-types. It was those who kindly and gently showed me a better way. They invited me to “taste and see.” And I knew they were for real by their humility, and their love. (I John 3:18) I don’t know how I would’ve gotten any idea of what the gospel meant had I not seen real-life examples.
November 27th, 2009 | 4:41 am | #5
So the real gospel is criticizing your fellow Christians to build solidarity with people outside the faith? Where can I sign up?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact