I've already mentioned it here and there, but I'm currently reading a book, The Irresistible Revolution by Shane Claiborne. I'm about 2/3rds through, and it's been an interesting journey for me so far. His personal story is interesting (started hanging out with homeless people in Philadelphia as a way of following Jesus' example and exhortations to respect "the least of these," eventually works with Mother Teresa in Calcutta, then immediately returns to the USA and interns in the posh environment of Wheaton College and Willow Creek Church, and more...) but it's truly hard for me to imagine myself following his lead and adapting a communalist, radically activist way of life, even though I do my own bit of activism from my little suburban perch here in Wyoming MI. Plus he's quite idealistic and literalistic in his theology, not showing as much awareness of postmodern or critical perspectives on the Bible, philosophy or cross-cultural anthropology as I think he actually has (because he's clearly very bright, articulate and informed.) So I spend a fair amount of time trying to dig under and deconstruct his rhetoric.Last night I read his chapter on the Iraq War, and that genuinely impressed me, won me over I might even say. He had the opportunity to work with Christian Peacemaker Teams in the period just before the war and was actually in Baghdad in March and April of 2003 when the coalition bombing attacks began and the country was invaded. Some dramatic things happened while he was there, to say the least. I'm just moved by the commitment he showed and, in this book, his willingness to hold the American church to account for its too-enthusiastic and unwavering support for war and its over-indulgence in narrow expressions of nationalism. He doesn't completely shred to the extent that I think he could, but he's being tactful so as to lower the risk of alienating some of the younger folks who've probably been right there with him to that point but haven't yet thought through the anti-war perspective or still live in fear of being seen as a liberal.
Claiborne makes good use of sources outside the Bible, particularly Martin Luther King, pulling in some MLK quotes from his later Vietnam-era writings. Though I have not yet finished the book, I am going to give it a strong plug here - I think Claiborne's voice and perspective are strong and deserving of serious reflection. He's a guy who has put his whole life into this non-violent activist thing and despite being a published author and all that, I don't get the sense that this is all about him. Check out the website of his community, a simple way, and notice that even though he's mentioned, it's not until quite a ways down on the page. It just may be the case that Shane Claiborne is the real deal, and I for one am paying closer attention.
8 comments:
The book looks interesting to me based on your review. I enjoy reading things from other peoples perspectives that challenge my own beliefs and ideas. If I can see some light or be convinced of an idea then I see that as a positive correction. However if I can still maintain my ideals while carefully taking in someone else's then my own will be that much more re-affirmed to me. I usually find that understanding others is a win win situation, and infact why I enjoy your blog Dave!
Anyway regarding the book I could only read the sample chapter available on the website. I was initially interested in the Iraq war section since it impacted you, but only chapter 1 was available and I don't want to buy it particularly. Religion I also happen to find very intruiging topic though and I also found it to be an interesting read, and suprisingly agree with a fair portion of his theology, however I think it is also lacking and somewhat misguided in certain areas.
To start I would agree a true christian has little need for the larger christian churches that have been established and claim authority. I believe largely the bible is studied in a very blind way, led by false leaders of the church, and got the impression that is what he was saying as well. Christianity certainly should be lived and Jesus' examples followed as literaly as possible however you and I are are not Jesus and do not possess his insights. This means it is equally important for us to study the bible continuously and I felt his emphasis on action over study was quite misguided. Thats not to say I dissaprove of his actions though as I certainly feel activism for the poor and care of your fellow man is crucial. Again however it is only one aspect of many on how Jesus taught us to live, not to mention Jesus' own life occured under unique circumstances which freed him of other other obligations that he could devote himself to helping others in such a "radical" way. Jesus had no wife, and no kids, both of which a man has both biblical and other obligations towards. Feeding your children comes before feeding yourself or feeding the poor. Respecting your wife comes before dragging the family into uncertainty after uncertainty to do good. Jesus avoided those obligations but certainly every man is not expected to, and Jesus taught us enough that we could lead a christian life in many ways even if we deviate from his exact literal path. I found it rather insulting that Mr.Claiborne could not find a christian among his community but the first activist he comes across is a true christian and the first person he treats has the eyes of Jesus. Being destitute does not make one good, it just means you should help them if you can, or you are the the one in error. All in all I found his views a bit too narrow and a little self righteous in his beliefs his exact path is superior when frankly he still has a long long way to go to have practiced it anywhere near the level of Jesus and even many other people doing those things today.
It may not sound like it but I thought it was a nice narrative overall of a positive experience. I smiled and laughed at some parts. I am really more of a soft person than I appear when I am stating a firm opinion on something, which is often what I am doing as far as my replies on here so I worry I come across a little too hard. I enjoy the stimulus of analysis and debate though so thanks for that. On an unrelated note, Happy Birthday Sir! And I wish you well for all the days inbetween the next ones as well.
Thanks for taking the time to read that chapter and post this comment. I don't have the book nearby at the moment but I will try to write up a summary of that Iraq chapter sometime this weekend.
One of the things that Claiborne is trying to do (IMO) is to move his readers away from the assumption that Christianity is primarily about "beliefs." Notice that when he says "I was ready to see Christianity lived out" he's referring to leaving America and going to be with Mother Teresa in Calcutta. In essence, he's redefining Christianity in a narrow way. Christianity is being lived out here in North America, it's just that Claiborne doesn't like the way its been assimilated into our capitalist consumerist and violence-loving culture. As I said in my original post, I see Claiborne using a lot of rhetoric (as did Jesus and many other "movement leaders") which is fine but rhetoric does not always give the most accurate description of what is really going on - he exaggerates, simplifies and draws attention to particular details while minimizing other aspects of a particular situation, so you have to keep this in mind when reading his book. I think that if one had the opportunity to get beneath the surface of the stories he tells in the book, even Claiborne would probably acknowledge that the contrasts are not quite so stark as he portrays them to be (e.g. "no Christians" in his American setting, "pure original spirit-of-Jesus Christianity" in Mother Teresa's Calcutta.)
I don't know that I can agree with your statement that Jesus' examples should be followed as literally as possible. Probably I have an aversion to some of the implications of the word "literal"... I understand and agree with the differences you point out between Jesus' life and ours, and I think those differences make "literal" imitation of Jesus less advisable for many people. Jesus himself only seemed interested in cultivating a small group of disciples (who we could consider potential "literal imitators") but a lot of people he encountered he only had a simple message for and then he was content to let them go on their way. He was much less obsessive and controlling over their beliefs, theological imaginations or ceremonial worship habits than the great majority of church leaders these days. Instead, he had powerful in-the-moment responses to people in various situations that kept him spontaneous and unpredictable. In that respect, imitating Jesus makes sense to me but if we just read what the gospels say and "do that" in a literalistic manner we risk falling into another form of ceremonialism and self-conscious piety.
I'm with you in that I don't anticipate leaving my wife and family who I am pretty sure don't feel inclined to take vows of poverty and join up with an urban activist Christian commune. Perhaps at some point later in the book Claiborne gets around to addressing the "suburbanite captives" in his audience who aren't ready or able to follow his invitation all the way. But given the woeful antipathy that so many mainstream evangelicals have had to genuinely gracious social activism and ministry over the past, say, hundred years or more, I like what Claiborne's doing. Even his uncompromising rhetoric and right-between-the-eyes style of quoting the Bible and taking it at face value is just using the same methods that his fundamentalist counterparts have specialized in for decades, so he's balancing out the big picture. I'm glad that you enjoyed your encounter with his ideas and that you are a regular reader of my blog!
Well, by "as literally as possible" I am omitting some of the scope to which Jesus did things. I don't think we are expected to lead his life, but rather incorporate his examples as literally as is practical for us. I think Jesus taught even a little kindness is seen as a great deal in the eyes of god.
Jesus had a large job that was the primary focus of his life, while I believe we are expected to live for our own happiness and persuits as well. His may have limited his own to serving God by his own choice, but we are able to include more. Man was originally created without disease and the earth a paradise where hunger and suffering would not exist, so I don't believe simply caring for the suffering is all we are meant to do. Obviously we were created with the intent to gain happiness from family, friends, and the innumerable things created for us to explore. I believe following a course for your own happiness is perfectly acceptable, just that a good person will show love to others who cross that path.
I could be wrong but I doubt we would have much disagreement on how literally to follow Jesus even though you are skeptical about the term. I believe in a common sense translation of the bible, not because I don't believe in strictly adhering to the bible, but because I translate it as common sense guidelines! Why would God even give us common sense and then have Jesus leave us with a set of rules that deviated from it!? This is where I have alot of problems with most churches, that openly do things that are obviously wrong but their followers are too brainwashed to open their eyes too it. Jesus taught humbility and washed the feet of his disciples right? But the pope lives in a palace, wears $1,000 custom extravagent garments, and has people kissing his hand. I don't think you are catholic but they tend to have to most obvious examples, though I can name them in more or less every church. The idolitry of the cross is another pretty straight-forward one to me, though so many people make scathing arguments in its support. The bottom line is the bible clearly says to avoid idolitry, not to go ahead and use it just because it is for God. There is infact never an instance where Jesus uses it, or says it is ok to doso, but rather says the complete opposite through the entire bible. Beyond that the cross was initially a symbol for the pagan god Tammuz as well as the fact it is more likely Jesus died on a stake than a cross. Cross in Greek means a pole, and not a cross as we know it, and imagry from the era support the fact people were killed often on stakes and not "t" crosses, although these points are really irrelevant to anyone accepting that we were commanded not to do it anyway. The pope, the easter bunny, nuns, crosses, the Trinity, all creations of a church that has proven itself failable throughout its entire history, none coming from the bible. People have to choose what to believe on their own but for me the good bet is just to stick with the actual teachings of the bible.
Anyway, I started rambling as usual. I'm kind of curious on your thoughts on the latter things I've said as the opposing opinions I've read online seem to be evangelicals who are relying more on attacking anyone not accepting their way as heretics or cultists while offering up only a weak argument. If I sat down in a room with just them, and a bible, they would have to acknowlege I can find dozens of scriptures supporting why not to use a cross, while they would not be able to offer one that says why we should.
He was much less obsessive and controlling over their beliefs, theological imaginations or ceremonial worship habits than the great majority of church leaders these days.
Just had to highlight this quote. Really liked it.
Really.
Julie
Thanks for plucking out that little tidbit, Julie. It does get me to wonder about what Jesus would think of today's megachurches, even simply the sheer size of them and how rigorously they program (or at least try to) all aspects of the church's life. The lack of formal organization and institutional structure exemplified by Jesus and his disciples has spiritual and practical signficance to me re: the kind of leadership I seek and the degree to which I affiliate with large-scale religious organizations.
I'd for the most part agree with you and Julie Dave, even if there is a need for certain formalities, I think they can easily be flexible rather than be strictly outlined by the church. I often cannot stick to them in such a rigid fashion (and have limited desire to since I question many of them) and find many of those who do, are doing it out of obligation rather than a real desire to doso. There is also those who do it and develope a sense of religious superiority from it, becoming difficult to deal with, or even be around. This can obviously pressure and drive out many who are having difficulty living upto them. I see quite a few pitfalls from such expectations that every person follow a standardized structure, when most people are in unique situations.
(If you want, or do not want to reply to my earlier comment you can e-mail me if you dont have time to get to it in the near future, I'm in no rush)
Alex, I will reply to your second comment here later on Monday afternoon or evening (8/28) as the main focus of today's blog entry. Mainly because this thread is getting long and it's easier for others to join in if I bring our conversation to the top. Also because there's nothing else that I've got going on that seems blog-worthy to me at the moment!
Hi Dave,
I was going to resist your invitation to read your comments here on Shane Claiborne's book "Irresistible Revolution" until I was farther along in the book (I'm about 1/4 of the way into it), but my curiosity got the better of me, especially since I sent the link to others -- figured I better see what I'm sending them to.
Back to what I'm inclined to share: Of course any sharing is one person's perspective/journey. It doesn't need to be seen as a model or imperative for how others 'should' live their lives. I'm grateful that Shane took the time and trouble to write about his journey.
There have been a number of reviews written on this book, and one that I found very "meaty", in that it is not just critiquing the book, but adding the authors insights can be found at:
http://heartsandmindsbooks.com/articles/mar06.htm
(Hearts and Minds is also a good place to support if you are going to purchase books.)
This passage in particular addresses some of the comments/criticisms:
My concern, for those who follow our Hearts & Minds BookNotes blog or who have read these monthly reviews, may be predictable. Shane seems to stand in the tradition of what one might call Christian anarchism. Like Dorothy Day or St. Francis, he calls for serving the poor while articulating orthodox, simple love for the gospel. He is nearly an evangelical Jerry Rubin---a Christian version of Wavy Gravy (if you don’t catch that reference, just skip it.) But that seems to me to be too simple. We need ordinary radicals, as he says. The gospel is revolutionary, this idea of a regime change on the planet. But ordinary radicals take up their subversive vocations and callings as artists and chemists, stockbrokers and storekeepers, IT techs and veterinarians, public health researchers and school administrators, stay-at-home dads and urban gardeners, farmers and poets, citizens and sports fans. They go to work in government and media and they serve God in science and schooling. Of course I am referring to those who are the likely market for this book---middle class folks who have the blessing of exploring careers and serving in various spheres in our (over?) developed Western culture, unlike subsistence farmers or refugees in the two-thirds world. And even here, nearby your home and mine, many are too poor or beaten down or confused to explore using their gifts in callings and careers.
Nonetheless, to bring true healing to our disordered society we need some of our best and brightest to not drop out and live with the homeless, but rather to infiltrate the corporations and think-tanks, research centers and engineering firms, political parties and school boards and hope to make an impact there. Like Daniel in Babylon---or like the critical letter Jeremiah sent to the first batch of exiles living in captivity there, famously recorded in Jeremiah 21---we are not called to resist our culture at every point or feel squeamish about taking up tasks within the empire. Shane would not disagree, I am sure, that we are to "seek the peace of the city" where we find ourselves. I think, though, that this means in our day, a renewed focus on the reformation teachings (nearly exquisite in Luther and Calvin) that ordinary folk serve God best in their workaday offices. We need to shout from the rooftops the mandate that Vincent Bacote has called "The Church’s First Great Commission" to steward the Earth and its possibilities. It is an emphasis that doesn’t come through in this book, rendering it, in my view, not too radical, but not radical enough.
[end of excerpted material]
I am especially interested in the path Shane has followed because I've been trying to figure out what my path is. I don't have a spouse or children or other things that many have and are assumed to have/want. I don't believe that this is a lack, but it is my gift or path and gives me different responsibilities than those that have those things. So what am I to do with my gifts? There don't seem to be many models for me that fit with my sensibilities of purpose and a life worth living.
Post a Comment