A Politician, a Theologian (?), and Shane Claiborne

I usually wouldn't usually borrow two posts in a row from the same person, but once again Sam Andress has referred us to a very interesting video, and once again it involves Greg Boyd.

This video is a "debate" between Chuck Colson, Greg Boyd, and Shane Claiborne. It's a really interesting conversation which, I think, shows how difficult it is for theologians and politicians to understand each other. Colson, who I would say is more of a politician than a theologian (and I don't mean that to be taken offensively), and Boyd (who may or may not be seen as the most theologically engaged) seem to be very different and they seem to even talk past each other on occasion. Boyd's arguments seem to strike Colson as, maybe, impractical... and rightly so. I think at least the apparent implication of impracticality might be a sign of a good start toward a healthy theological position on politics. But I was pleasantly surprised how often I found myself agreeing with Colson. Then Shane Claiborne, neither theologian (professionally) nor politician, but a very important voice in the evangelical/political realm, comes into the conversation with awesome comments that seem to almost transcend the conversation. You really should watch at least the first few minutes of this 1 & 1/2 hour long video.

Thanks again to Sam for posting this.


Mark said…
Nice post! I watched the whole thing, and it was really good. What I thought was funny was that at their core, all three guys on the panel agreed with each other on the ideas that we as Christians have to love one another (though they differed on how much it seemed) and that our first commitment is to Christ (though they differed on what all that entails).

I think this is one of the church's biggest problems right now, and I myself am very guilty of this: instead of working together and starting to realize what we do agree on as the Body of Christ, we choose to disagree on the details. Why do we do this?
wellis68 said…
I don't know why we do this. It's frustrating, however it is notable that what we disagree on most often is not the ideas, necessarily, but the way in which we should live them out. In order for us to work together we simply have to work that out through dialog (which shouldn't, but often does, turn out to be arguing).