How I Came to Write an Apostolic Letter to Non-Christians in Esquire

In "an incredible heart-to-heart conversation...he may not have left Christianity behind."

Sadly, impatience, judgments and hypocrisy have driven far too many away from the Jesus they were really hoping to find.

mysilentscream.com/

If you're not a believer, it doesn't really matter to God.

"he wanted folks to see the sort of Christianity we espouse, and went on to say, on a very personal note, that if he had seen this sort of movement, he may not have left Christianity behind."

I'll pray, as you ask, that your article will bear redemptive fruit.

I am curious if Jim Wallis and Sojourners support the sort of Christianity espoused in a movement recently put forth as the "Manhattan Declaration," which draws a line between rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars', but not what is Gods'. Take a look at it. It is signed by a range of Christians with various doctrinal positions.

http://manhattandeclaration.org/decdocs/Manhatt...

"he wanted folks to see the sort of Christianity we espouse, and went on to say, on a very personal note, that if he had seen this sort of movement, he may not have left Christianity behind."

I'll pray, as you ask, that your article will bear redemptive fruit.

I am curious if Jim Wallis and Sojourners support the sort of Christianity espoused in a movement recently put forth as the "Manhattan Declaration," which draws a line between rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars', but not what is Gods'. Take a look at it. It is signed by a range of Christians with various doctrinal positions.

http://manhattandeclaration.org/decdocs/Manhatt...

That's a wonderful letter, Shane. Thank you.

The article in Esquire is interesting, and I think it will probably be of comfort to some who reject Christianity for emotional reasons rather than logical ones.

As a skeptic, I also appreciate the sentiment of the article, but I've been around long enough to know that a LOT of ministers say words like these. For most of them, the goal is to attract followers, and it makes sense. If you're selling a product, you don't put forward all its flaws to potential buyers. In truth, most Christians of my acquaintance appear to believe that the love-and-acceptance part of Christianity is good pablum for new converts, but more mature "real Christians" will cut their teeth on "loving the sinner and hating the sin" (i.e. attacking and/or condescending to the "sinner" and calling that love). I mean no personal attack on Shane Claiborne, who very well may be able to live up to these words. I have no way of knowing.

My point, however, is this. I don't care whether Christians are liberals or conservatives. More importantly, I don't care whether Christians love anyone else or not. The last part sounds harsh, I know, but let's face it: religion and dogma render well-intentioned words like "love" meaningless. Examples follow.

There are abusive, soul-destroying wilderness camps across the country where "good Christian" parents have sent their misbehaving children for "tough love." Out of "love," faith-empowered families kick children out of the house for being gay, turning them over to the world for the mortification of their flesh so their souls might be preserved. Religious politicians routinely speak of "love of God and country" as they mock and ridicule their own countrymen and treat them like enemy combatants.

To those Christians I say: spare the rest of us the love. No, really.

I'm confident that all this makes me sound embittered, but believe it or not, I actually have a pretty positive outlook on life. I believe there are solutions to the problems facing us as a society, and I believe Christians will play the lead role in solving them (for numerical reasons if nothing else). It's going to take meaningful change in Christianity for that to happen, though.

And in my opinion, the only meaningful change in Christianity will happen when Christians recognize that peace is better than war, whether they love the other guy or not. Examples follow.

Hate gays? So be it: but think rationally and recognize that they don't threaten your way of life. Cooperate with giving them rights that all human beings should have. If your faith can't handle actually befriending them, then live along side them peacefully and heap burning coals upon their heads with your kindness.

Hate abortion and believe it is murder? Argue accordingly, but recognize that there are sincere people of good conscience who believe it is just as barbaric to force an unwilling woman to give up control over her own body for nine months. Come to the table to negotiate instead of to impart "prophecy," and we can probably find adequate birth control to make abortions very rare.

Think liberals are a bunch of effeminate bed-wetters? Then "man up" and quit acting like your faith is so weak that it can be undermined by the mere presence of open minds in the house next door. Loving them is not required; respecting them as human beings *is.*

Thanks Shane, You're article was just emailed to me yesterday and I was wondering hmm? where did Shane Claiborne and Esquire crossed paths and then I pull up Sojo today and boom there it is. I found myself in the same shoes as the Esquire writer a couple of years ago and found the likes of Shane and Brian which for me, finally affirmed the Jesus I had read about in the Bible.

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by sojourners: How I Came to Write an Apostolic Letter to Non-Christians in Esquire by Shane Claiborne http://bit.ly/82tNES...

"I am curious if Jim Wallis and Sojourners support the sort of Christianity espoused...."

I am curious as to how this paragraph and accompnaying link respond in any way to Shane Claiborne's article.

Jane

The Manhatten Declaration is a stand by Christians that likely is the
opposite of side of the coin from what the world finds acceptable.
I'm just curious to what liberal Christians think about this
movement. Shane was pleased with the way his article was accepted,
and the impact it may have. I'm curious about this. That is the
connection, although admittedly really, really weak. Really weak.
Anyway, have a good day.

Shane,

Lord knows we disagree about a lot of things, but this was very well done.

LV

I agree. But a lot of people find it is harder to act like a Christian than to just follow the rituals and talk the talk. I consider myself to be an aspiring follower of Christ, since the word "Christian" has become so associated with cruelty, judgmentalism, arrogance, etc.

So many of us have been disillusioned by the "Christian" who turns out to be a snake-in-the-grass. Part of why we sometimes trust people is based on their professed beliefs. It's a very painful betrayal when they turn out to be phoney.

I wish the thoughts you express would more often come from self-identified Christians. Christ's message was simple --treat others with respect and love. And to be meaningful, it has to be shown in action, as in ways you have suggested.

I too had this article e-mailed to me the other day by a non-Christian. I was wondering how Shane got into Esquire. Now I know.

Thanks Shane, You're article was just emailed to me yesterday and I was wondering hmm? where did Shane Claiborne and Esquire crossed paths and then I pull up Sojo today and boom there it is. I found myself in the same shoes as the Esquire writer a couple of years ago and found the likes of Shane and Brian which for me, finally affirmed the Jesus I had read about in the Bible.

I completely agree. Especially after Shane's book, I.R., and the book "unchristian", I can't stand the name that we as Christians have given ourselves. Sadly, Christianity has become a focus on everyone else's sins (while we are ALL sinful) and has forgotten Christ's most significant command and mission: LOVE.

It's not about arrogantly attacking gays, pro-abortionists, etc. and standing out on corners preaching with personal attacks. God does not hate "fags", He loves EVERYONE, and we should do, no matter who that person is. Love is not a word, either, it is an action that takes sacrifice and selflessness. We as Christians, who claim to emulate Christ, much more often than not emulate the Pharisees who attacked, rebuked, hated, and crucified Him instead. WE ARE SO PHARISAICAL.

After realizing at how awful I actually am at following Christ, and recognizing how much I need his forgiveness, redemption, and unconditional love because of how much I screw up, I think even calling myself a Christ follower is a little ambitious. Thank God for His love, sacrifice, and forgiveness! But we cannot keep this love to ourselves, and it starts by loving others before everything else. SMALL THINGS WITH GREAT LOVE

Good points. I think there are 150 signatures from major players
within Catholicism, Orthodox traditions, Evangelicals etc. Not sure
of names. I know Chuck Colson wrote part of it and the thrust of the
declaration has ties to writings of the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer. I
think Sojourners should address it.

Shane,

Lord knows we disagree about a lot of things, but this was very well done.

LV

I too had this article e-mailed to me the other day by a non-Christian. I was wondering how Shane got into Esquire. Now I know.

Thanks for your honest comments. Let me make some honest comments back--as a devout Christian.

I could care less about Christianity and about political categories. So the case against Christianity and those who may think that liberals are "effeminate bed-wetters" is interesting -- but what is the point? That is, if your consideration is truly one to logically consider the person of Jesus?

I think it perfectly reasonable to challenge Christians on the integrity of our actions and thought.

Your essential argument that you want Christians to act in greater love and at the same time to stop loving because it is a false facade is not very convincing to me.

As a devout skeptic--how do you respond to Jesus?

Well, Sojourners isn't the least bit interested in that kind of religion -- the kind more focused on cultural authority than service -- so I don't see why or how how it would do so. It just reads so partisan.

How do you know it reflects the world spirit and not know who who wrote and signed it--since reading it to the bottom would make quite evident who wrote it??????

LetJustice,

The examples I gave at the end of my comment were of ways that Christians might show respect for the rest of humanity, whether they love the rest of us or not. It was not intended to be a case against Christianity, because that seems way off topic for this forum.

No matter what you as an individual believe, at least two-thirds of the world's population disagrees with you and may believe you're evil and going to hell or its equivalent. The question is not how we convince each other of the correctness of our positions: the question is can we find a way to live together peacefully despite our differences

I don't know how I could have left the impression that I want Christians to act in greater love, but apparently I did. No. My point was that love is not necessary for a civil society; a level of mutual respect is necessary instead. Universal love is not a realistic goal, but it is within most of our grasps to treat a fellow human being with the respect and courtesy due a human being. In the same way that we try to respect the office of the president, even when we personally dislike its occupant, we can be civil to each other.

When the majority of Christians are ready to see that pluralism is not a moral failure, and that living together in peace is better than the endless conflict required for enforcing Christian purity, the world will be a much better place. If Muslims ever get there, we may actually have world peace.

Because part of the problem with the kind of Christianity the declaration represents is that it desires cultural preeminence -- that is, "because WE say this it must be true and everybody, believers or not, must fall in line with us." That's not how the early church operated -- heck, not even ancient Israel took that tack because it knew full well it was different and meant to be so. As I said, it really has nothing do with specific positions on Biblical issues; the Scripture makes clear that, absent the spirit of God, you really can't obey them anyway.

Political action from Focus on the Family is religion focused on cultural authority and political action from Sojourners is service.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Just look at how much reach in Christian media each has -- no comparison.

BTW, I've been an ESA member for over 20 years, but I don't always agree with Ron Sider.