- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (5/9)
- Next Post »April Book Giveaway Winners
Book Review - The Irresistible Revolution
- 05/09/08
- 31
Love him or hate him, it is tough to accuse Shane Claiborne of being an armchair quarterback. He is not a man who seeks to convince people to do something that he is unwilling to do himself. Instead he calls Christians to live as radicals while he himself lives in a radically counterculture way. Claiborne is one of the founders of The Simple Way, a small but increasingly high-profile ministry among the poor in Philadelphia. He lives here in poverty, choosing to spend his days with the poor and the destitute, serving them and sharing in their trials. The Irresistible Revolution is Claiborne’s biographical account of how he became the activist he is today and it is his cry for other Christians to become “ordinary radicals.”
Much of The Irresistible Revolution revolves around Claiborne’s journeys to India, where he spent several months working with Mother Teresa, and Iraq where he came face-to-face with the devastation caused by the war in that nation. As his story has been told, Claiborne has become a kind of folk hero and especially so among young church-goers. They see in his life a way of living out Scriptural principles; they are swept away by it. A skilled writer and storyteller, Claiborne uses the book to teach some foundational ways of living life and understanding the Bible. This book is a quick and enjoyable read. Much of his critique against the North American church is accurate and even necessary. He is right that the church has become apathetic and at times overly politicized. In many churches there is far more heat than light; in many more there is neither heat nor light. His concern for those who have little or no voice in society is much needed. But even though some of what he teaches is biblically sound, underlying the book are many foundational assumptions and doctrines that are patently unbiblical and that undermine the message he seeks to share. I would like to point out just a few examples.
Claiborne advocates a kind of spirituality that is far more Mother Teresa than Jesus Christ and as he does so reveals that he is willing to bend, break, stretch and pull the Scripture to fit what he needs it to say in order to support his desires. While idealistic and radical in his interpretation of the Christian Scriptures, he is remarkably naive (at least I hope it is naivite) about other religions. When in India he often heard the “mystical word namaste” whispered in his ear. He says the word means, “I honor the Holy One who lives in you” and then teaches a brand of pantheism that has more to do with Hinduism than with Christianity. “I could see God in their eyes. … I began to understand what it meant when the curtain of the temple was torn open as Jesus died on the cross. Not only was God redeeming that which was profane but God was settling all that was sacred free. Now God dwelled not behind the veil in the temple but in the eyes of the dying and the poor, in the ordinary and mundane, in things like bread and wine, or chai and samosas.” He says also, “As I looked into the eyes of the dying, i felt like I was meeting God. It was as if I were entering the Holy of Holies of the temple—sacred, mystical.” What word is there for this but blasphemy?
Claiborne is a pacifist, teaching in several places that there are is no such thing as just war or redemptive violence. That violence can in some instances lead to good is a myth, he insists. Though he is a pacifist, he often advocates a kind of civil disobedience that seems to be in direct contradiction to the Bible’s explicit teaching that all authority is God-given and that we are to submit to authority unless it commands us to do something explicitly forbidden by Scripture. Claiborne advocates a “greater good” philosophy of obedience that allows people to disobey the government or other authorities when they are acting in a way that seems unjust. Hence he will encourage homeless people to take over a building that is not theirs and stand with them against the authorities when they seek to remove them. Yet this raises an interesting contradiction. If in his worldview violence causes further violence, how can he permit and advocate disobedience as if this will not cause further disobedience? The book is rife with this kind of contradiction.
Not surprisingly, there are problems also with the message of this book. The message Claiborne teaches, preaches and models is not a gospel of salvation through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. It is not a gospel that saves souls as much as it is a gospel that brings wealth to the poor and sustains the health of the planet. These are good and noble ends, indeed, but they are not the gospel message; this is not the message Jesus came to proclaim and this is not the message of Jesus’ Apostles. It is not the primary message of Scripture. We may tend to the needs of the poor and join them in their suffering, but our foremost concern must be for their souls. And to care for their souls we must bring to them the good news that Jesus died for sinners just like them.
And it continues. The discerning reader will find here much cause for concern. Ultimately so much of what Claiborne teaches is utter folly, even if it does sound attractive. A review published just days before this one says it well: “His theology is an unbiblical and incoherent synthesis which might be described as popularized Christian anarchism for young, disaffected, middle-class Americans.” There is little that is radical in Claiborne’s message; we have heard it all before. Though we can appreciate his concern for the poor and for the destitute, we must insist that the gospel message—the message of Jesus’ atoning death for hopeless sinners like you and me—be the message that marks us as radicals in this world.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (31)
Did you know that Shane Claiborne is most likely coming to MissionFest Toronto 2009? Thank you for this review.
Thank you for your book review. A friend recently lent the book to me and upon reading it I found it a bit confusing. You have helped clarify it for me. I realised there was a major problem as Claiborne placed the same significance on the command to give away all that we have and the command "You must be born again". This emphasis on physically giving goods away to gain salvation is surely works-religion and suggesting that by doing good works we can gain a place in heaven.
What word is there for this but blasphemy?
Biblical?
25:34 Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 25:35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 25:36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 25:37 Then the righteous will answer him,35 ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 25:38 When36 did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? 25:39 When37 did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 25:40 And the king will answer them,38 ‘I tell you the truth,39 just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters40 of mine, you did it for me.’
Spot on, as usual. Thanks for the review. I just finished this book last week. In my reading, I attempted to glaze over the many theological implications I would take issue with, and try to focus on how I could be changed from what he has to say. Nothing drastic yet, but it does help to put middle-class suburban life into context.
Interesting--I had just recently heard of Shane Claiborne but knew nothing about him. Reading this, I was reminded of a quote by Rich Mullins which may or may not be relevant here. He said...
"Before I got into this music business, I was determined to live a life of dire and grinding poverty. I remember my uncle saying, 'Wow, you are so proud of being poor--what's so great? You would do a lot better to be a little more industrious, a little more frugal. If you're really concerned about the poor, becoming poor isn't going to help them, it's just going to ease your own conscience. If you're really concerned about the poor, go out and make a fortune and spend it on them.'"
Why doesn't someone give a good response to Brandon?
Something we need to think about: Jesus' gospel wasn't all about a penal substitutionary atonement, that is was, but the Bible will now allow us to separate that from his proclamation of God's eschaton coming to bear on the present. Claiborne's temple theology is messed up. Jesus' is the temple, not the poor. But how can we display this eschaton to the world?
It seems interesting that well you point of blasphemy as the reason Claiborne could "see Jesus in their eyes", the reason is simply left to your opinion, not scripture. It's this kind of blanket finger pointing that continues to divide the body of Christ...it's this just a new version of "This is what I mean: Each of you is saying, "I follow Paul," or "I follow Apollos," or "I follow Cephas," or "I follow Christ." Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in Paul's name?"...
Where the early followers of Christ killed simply because they told everyone to follow Jesus...or because they claimed allegiance to another kingdom, another emperor, and another belief system?
Would it have been more acceptable if he had said he saw "the image of God" instead of God in the eyes of those he encountered. What could he have said to avoid the pantheistic label. While I don't know much about this guy, and I haven't read the book, the critique seems to toss baby and bathwater.
There was someone else who gave up everything to come and meet the needs of those who were lost and dying and marginal.
"The Bible will now allow us to separate that (the penal substitutionary atonement) from His proclamation of God's eschaton...???
I'm sorry Nick, but that is incredibly unbiblical. Neglecting the substitutionary atonement so that you can instead simply proclaim the coming Kingdom seem contradictory to the New Testament. The Kingdom rises and falls with what happened upon the cross.
thanks for a comprehensive review on the book. some questions arouse as i was reading your review. why not meeting with and seeing God through His written, revelatory Word? why does it have to be the eyes of a dying, poor man that we encounter God? wonder if God is calling us to a movement of ending poverty on THIS earth or to a personal allegiance to follow Christ in our lifestyle. and such lifestyle would serve the needy and the poor not to write a book or promote self-radicalism but really to help those who are in need as an act of worship of a living sacrifice. i wonder.
“As I looked into the eyes of the dying, i felt like I was meeting God. It was as if I were entering the Holy of Holies of the temple—sacred, mystical.” What word is there for this but blasphemy?"
What fellowship has light with darkness? There is nothing inherently holy about the poor, any more than there is anything inherently holy about the rich. Yes, we bear the (marred) image of God, but when Paul says "our righteousness is a filthy rags" where does that leave room for meeting God anywhere but in Christ himself?Mr .Claiborne calls some men sacred on account of their lack of social standing. The bible calls all men fallen and depraved and looks to Jesus to be our righteousness.
Therein lies the blasphemy. Not in serving the poor, but in calling the unholy, holy.
"I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me."
more food for thought,
"But He answered them saying, 'Who is my mother, or My brothers?' And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, 'Here are My mother and My borthers! For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother." Mark 3:33-35
I don't know if this is relevant as I have not read the book and I am not sure what Brandon meant by his comments and quotation of Matthew 25 - but almost all the best commentators say that these verses are not about ANY people being feed, clothed or visited in prison but relate to Christians - how did you respond to those who brought he message - how did you look after believers who were hungry and naked and in prison. Interestingly, if you read the passage, both groups, those on the right and those on the left are surprised at the NATURE of the judgment - when did we do these things? Those who did it were surprised that that was the basis of the judgment as were those who did not do those things. Finally, the passage says "what you did to the LEAST OF MY BROTHERS AND SISTERS - which suggests it relates to believers.
This all may be irrelevant to this discussion but thought i would post anyway. Peace in Christ!
"I’m sorry Nick, but that is incredibly unbiblical. Neglecting the substitutionary atonement so that you can instead simply proclaim the coming Kingdom seem contradictory to the New Testament. The Kingdom rises and falls with what happened upon the cross."
I meant to say "not allow us" not "now allow us". My horrid mistake! I love Penal Substitution.
I feel like this review brushes over Claiborne's pacifist stand, a position of importance and note. Although I do agree with you, Tim, that he does promote a disobedience that is contrary to Scripture, particularly in the discussion of homeless people taking over buildings, but I was surprised that you glossed over his position against just war or redemptive violence. Understandably, this is a bit of an area of theological interpretation and disagreement, with many American theologians taking the side of C.S. Lewis' Just War theory, but I am curious as to your reaction to Clairborne's stance and your position on the matter.
On the comment about being poor vs. working to have excess to provide, here is Paul the Apostle's thoughts:
"He who steals must steal no longer; but rather he must labor, performing with his own hands what is good, so that he will have something to share with one who has need." —Ephesians 4v.28
We're to work to have extra (not for greedy gain or base want) in order to have for to provide for one in need. Striving for poverty isn't admirable.
All I am saying is that It's certainly not blasphemy to admit that we can meet God in the eyes of the dying. Now, in quoting Mt 25 I am making the assumption that they are actively sharing Christ in whatever they are doing and that the people are actively accepting. Having talked with those doing ministry to those in the lowest castes of Indian society, I don't think this is a risky assumption to make. It follows then that it’s not a stretch to assume that Claiborne could very well be talking of "brothers and sisters" and thus, if we do take Jesus at His Word, they would be meeting God.
I realize I'm of a theological persuasion probably not super welcome in the reformed parts of the blog-o-sphere, and as a result I normally don't comment. The use of blasphemy in this review just seemed inappropriate and a mischaracterization about what Claiborne is writing about.
Was Tony Campolo Shane's teacher by any chance? Sure sounds like it, and the location is right.
"Striving for poverty isn’t admirable." That sums it up pretty well! Striving for worldly riches is clearly wrong according to Jesus. But striving for poverty doesn't seem to me to be Biblically mandated nor do I think it is advisable.
I believe Claiborne and his ilk are really sincere. I think there are some admirable aspects to what they do. But I also think in terms of eternal significance their approach is wrong-headed.
I have not read the book, nor will I, but I found Tim's review helpful. I did read about Claiborn at http://thesimpleway.org/shane
His bio reads:
- Work/vocation: Hellfire and damnation preacher, writer, circus performer
- Deep thought or Good quote to ponder: Love... and do as you wish.
- Special gift or secret talent: Firebreathing and fire-eating
His recommended films reveal a lot about his worldview. He mentions his favorite CD's. (What truly poor person -- who takes such pride in intentionally being poor -- actually owns a CD player? Only in America...)
I looked at his speaking calendar. He's pretty much booked solid for the near future including trips to Canada, Europe, and all parts of the US. So... when does he have time to live the life of a poor person? How many of the truly impoverished have ever been on a plane?
I looked at his "glamour shots" (PR photos). Sad. Just sad. He looks so much more like an actor trying to look poor than... an actual poor person.
I see no explanation of the Gospel. His claim to be a "hellfire and damnation preacher" is clearly meant to be taken as a joke. I get a strong sense that he has no true understanding of hell or God's righteous and just damnation of all men who are sinners. (But again... I haven't read the book nor have I met him in person... I hope I'm wrong. That's just the impression I get.)
Judging by what I see on that web site and what I've read here, Claiborne is merely another neo-hippie trying to lead a "radical" movement. He looks a lot like a guy who couldn't keep his room clean or brush his teeth before going to bed so he just chucked it all and took on the persona of homeless prophet. Maybe he's really winning souls for Christ, in which case none of the above really matters that much. But I'm not convinced. Mostly I just hope he doesn't lead too many people astray with this nonsense.
If Clairborne is unpalatable for some, I would recommed Submerge: Living Deep in a Shallow World: Service, Justice and Contemplation Among the World's Poor by John B. Hayes.
He even quotes John Piper at one point.
Give poverty a chance.
i find the following troubling: the 'i haven't read his books but i'll comment anyway', the 'he owns a cd player', the lack of an obvious 'soul winning' strategy on his website, questioning how he spends his time, his speaking schedule... and all this implies that he's what...some kind of neo-hippie who needs to get a real job? wow. wow. wow.
i was at the simple way last year to visit and do some research. the evidence of his jesus- influence in that neighborhood was incredible. i've talked with shane about why he's doing what he's doing- perhaps i'll throw up a quote or two when i get a chance to maybe clarify and who knows, maybe it will confirm whether or not shane believes in penal substitionary atonement- would that make his ministry more viable? if shane got on his soapbox and made sure people understand they were 'justly' going to hell before breaking bread (er, i mean, dinner!) with them- would that give him some credibility? perhaps some sort of simple way statement of faith? my goodness. shane lives among the poorest in philly because he believes that that is what Jesus would do. that is where Jesus would be- and we're going to make him into some kind of villain?
He's been there for years trying to show Jesus to people and then he writes a book about it which resonates with rich young white people because they realize their lives of affluence aren't congruent with Jesus' teachings and bam- it's open season for critizing each element of his own systematic theology.
Thanks for the review Tim. I'm in the smae theological camp as you.
The Gospel must be first and foremost. The Gospel must be kept pure. And the Gospel is Christ. It's all about Christ, not the poor people. Life is all about making Jesus Christ famous among every tribe, nation, and tongue.
It's about Christ-centered hearts going out, and hating all the idol worship, for this brings dishonor to God.The Father seeks those who will worship Him, in Spirit and in truth. Poor, or rich, or middle-class.
Mother Theresa was a great example of compassion, but she may not have been a Christian, according to her own words.My pastor once preached what the genuine Gospel was according to Scripture, and mentioned Mother Theresa's beliefs, and concluded that she wasn't a born again Christian. Many were upset to say the least, but he spoke the truth in love.
"And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it is worthless". Paul is saying here there are those who know not Christ's love, and do all these great things, and it's worthless if done in a humanism compassion.
But if we have Christ's love, and are born anew, and worship Christ alone, then surely we will help the poor. if we don't, then we're not His.
Agreeing with donsands...
and Chris, we are warned of those who bring other christs or gospels...too often one finds people profess to be Christian but do not confess Jesus either at all, in whole, or unmisrepresented. We aren't even to "bear with" those people...and this is what this writer is doing.
We take the mote out of our eye and then we preach the word faithfully..."good works" is "upright works", that is, we're to be upright...in doctrine, life, and even in charitable endeavors: but if we do not minister with the word foremost we're simply not feeding anyone no matter how much bread we distribute or time we give to anyone.
And if we wrest the word we're merely comforting the damned, and poisoning God's sheep: and when we wrestle with the Word and say to God we won't let go until He blesses us (gives us His understanding) we truly honor and worship Him well: which can only truly be done if we're in Christ the Vine, our savior.
I think Brandon's quote is right on target, our actions towars the poor and needy ar our actions towards Christ. This passage impies that Jesus identifies with and is somehow present with the poor. Shane may have overstated his case, but it is far from being blasphemous.
I once came to a point in my spiritual life where I asked myself this question: if I had lived in Jesus' time, reading the Bible and practicing my faith as I do now, would I side with Jesus or the religious establishment of His day? I honestly realized that I would side with the Pharisees - I would say Christ was blaspheming in claiming to be God, my theology would trump everything else. Needless to say this shocked me and caused massive changes to my life. I just think we need to go deeper in understanding the Scriptures, we need to read it from our hearts and with humility, we need to acknowledge that there are nuances and we cannot systematize everything, we need to love more than understand.
"Popularized Christian anarchism for young, disaffected, middle-class Americans."
This quote sums up his book. I tried reading it, I really did, but I couldn't get past all the compromising. There was so little talk about actual gospel. Instead it was just a more radical version of friendship evangelism with lots of scriptures about how we should feed the poor and clothe the naked.
Yes, but that sandwich doesn't last long and jackets after a few years get faded, but the gospel of Christ is forever.
So why not preach the gospel?
It seems like the cool thing to do is to say "Anathema!" to the very message that Christ lived for and died for...*sigh*
It is clear to me that Claiborne toys a bit with Scripture and yet I appreciate the Scriptures he brings up that the Christian Right in America seems to ignore (i.e., he may not be raging so much against the Church, but against its confusing associations with politics).
Let us pray for people who hold unswervingly to orthodoxy and orthopraxy; who trust in Christ to be their righteousness, while also taking care of orphans and widows in distress. If either is ignored, Christ is not glorified and His gospel is distorted.
While we need to watch out for Claiborne's misuses of Scripture, let us ask what prompted him and many others to be so vehement in caring for the poor. Could our lack of application be the motive?
I don't know about the Canadian Church, but at last glance, the average American church goer gives 3% of his income to the Kingdom. That's barely enough to pay the staff and light bills, much less take care of the needy among us.
I just want to point toward Lance's Post (#27). Please read it.
I really appreciate the great deal of comments on this post. Whereas, I most appreciate Lance's because he seems to be listening the most. Maybe that is why his comment is #27. Lance seems to hear the complaint of Claiborne and the posts that follow suit as well as the conviction of the Challies review.
We need to listen so carefully (and discerningly) to what people like Shane Claiborne are concerned about. I just had a recent college grad tell me he was reading this book and there was an incredible spark in his eye ... a genuine interest. But something tells me that while I (with Challies) would not be impressed with Claiborne's conclusions (even to the point of calling some heresy) we would do well to ask with Lance, "what prompted him and many others to be so vehement in caring for the poor."
Lance, thank you for listening. Now ... let's all get busying finding a more God-centered, gospel informed, Christ-honoring, Spirit-filled answer.
Great review...I haven't read this first book but recently read "Jesus for President" and it sounds like there are some similar approaches in both books. I respect Shane's willingness to live out what he believes - I'm just not so sure that what he believes is an orthodox, consistent Christian worldview. Tim, I would love to see a review of "Jesus for President" as I think a lot of younger folks (my generation) are digesting this one in advance of the fall election.
To me the message that Shane is attempting to live out in his everyday life is the same message that Jesus lived out. He is just trying to love those that the world has deemed "unlovable." This book and this world view are challenging my faith more than anything else ever has. I think if we are going to call ourselves followers of Jesus then we better be ready to live the life that goes along with calling ourselves that. That is a life that reaches out and loves on the people who Jesus would be loving on. I am so discouraged sometimes by the actions of the church in regards to love. I think we all need to take a big step in the direction of the life that Shane is living because it is really close to the life that i believe Christ is calling us to live
While I appreciate some of your comments regarding "Irresistible Revolution" I need to respond to some of them. You call Shane's experience of seeing God in the poor and dying "blasphemy." Perhaps I misunderstood what you find so offensive in his statement, but is this not simply an intimate experience of our God as Immanuel - God with Us? Claiborne is not claiming that the people he interacts with are divine or that they are in some way a deity themselves. He is simply pointing out that we are created in God's image, that God walks with each of us and is present with us. I think you missed the point.Your critique of Claiborne that says he misses the "true message of Jesus" again misses the point. Yes, Jesus came to die for our sins, to bring salvation. Of course. I don't know where you got the idea that Shane does not believe this. What Shane is trying to say is that we are called to more than preaching the gospel. We are called to live it. What good is it for us to say "Jesus Saves" when we leave people in poverty and destitution and do nothing to change it. You can talk about how the 'next life' will bring justice and rewards or whatever, but that is not good enough. We are called to live the gospel in this life, to let His will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. Now. Today. This is what Shane is trying to say. He doesn't undermine the tennants of the Christian faith. He tries to remind us what they are and what they look like when we actually live them.