The Irresistible Revolution
This is an excellent book. I hesitate to say that Shane Claiborne has got Christianity right, or that this book represents the true understanding of Jesus' teachings - I'm becoming less confident about such statements. But I think what it advocates is a very good understanding of Christian discipleship, and I mean good in the sense of being of great practical benefit to both the practitioner and the surrounding world.
I'm starting to have an understanding of Christianity as far less about what you believe or what you feel or what you do on Sunday morning, and far more about how you live your life. (Again, I'm not saying this is the correct way to understand Christianity, but it resonates with me.) And I think the way-of-life Christianity that I'm draw to looks a lot like what Shane describes here.
The second half of the book gets talking a lot about politics, and war specifically, and I found it a little disappointing. It's not that I think these things shouldn't be spoken of, or that they're completely out of place with what he said earlier. But he has a few contentious points (eg. "all war is bad") which he keeps coming back to but never really supports. It was definitely thought-provoking, but not very persuasive.
Nonetheless, this is an excellent and very challenging book, and I strongly recommend it. I have a copy you could borrow, but this may be a good one to buy for yourself. For one thing, he's giving away all the profits.
Post a Comment
7 comments:
I think I may attempt to read it someday -- as usual (and as I'm sure most people can empathise with me), other reading vie for one's attention. My concerns with the book were twofold:
1. The faux-cardboard cover. I am suspicious of faux-cardboard. Then again, he probably had no choice in the final production look of the book.
2. The book is published by Zondervan. I know, I know, I've always been the first to defend Zondervan's publication of the NIV. Nevertheless, the fact that Zondervan and FOX News are owned by the same guy is at least disconcerting. In particular, one might excuse Zondervan's capitalistic, ultra-right-wing owner for publishing the Bible (a book that, admittedly, has been diversely interpreted throughout the centuries, and which one would be hardpressed to say adheres firmly to one camp or the other -- not to mention: it's always a bestseller); the fact that Zondervan is publishing this zealous appeal to the simple life (complete with faux-cardboard) does seem a little strange, doesn't it?
Then again, I haven't read the book. Those are just my immediate impressions, which I recognize might be completely addressed and assuaged after a quick read through.
I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding my concerns, J., as you have read the book.
Without knowing anything at all about that book...
A friend of mine who wears a "war is bad" button recently explained to me HIS difference between "war is bad" and "war is wrong". The first statement means all war is undesirable and harmful (which he and I agree with) and the second that all war is morally unjustifiable (which we disagree with).
The Bible also seems to suggest that some wars are morally justifiable.
Jeff: an old adage about books and covers comes to mind. I understand your concerns, to some extent, but I doubt it was the author's decision to have a faux-cardboard cover.
I don't know a aweful lot about Zondervan (or publishing in general) but I'm far more concerned with the sincerity of the author than the sincerity of the publisher. It's quite likely that they put out books such as this purely for the money, but this is a fact of life in a capitalist world.
"But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice."
Jens: Good point; this is an important distinction. It seems that Shane believes both "war is bad" and "war is wrong". He's not obnoxious about it, but neither does he explain his reasoning very clearly. If anything, he seems to argue that war is wrong because it's bad. I think his position is understandable, in light of his experiences in Iraq, but I wish he'd either presented his case more clearly or stuck to "war is bad".
The sincerity of the author is called into question by his choice of publisher. He has to take into account the political ramifications of his choice of publisher. He's not a dummy.
Of course, I can think of a few reasons that a raging leftie like this guy would choose Zondervan to publish with. For example, if he publishes with Zondervan, he will guarantee himself a spot in every Christian bookstore across the continent. And the people who go to that store are precisely the ones who need to hear his message. So, if one were to give him the benefit of a doubt, I suppose that could be a good reason for choosing the publisher he did.
I'm willing to give him that benefit; I'm just a little nervous when people make claims to simplicity and being radical (root-ness, as he tells us himself), and those claims are backed up with: raggedy "hard-core" fonts, faded print, strange book shapes, faux-cardboard (it's there man, regardless of whether he chose it or not, it's there and it's a problem), and pictures of the author hanging out in front of graffiti. As that famous Edmontonian, Marshall McLuhan, once said: The medium is the message.
That being said, your citation of Paul is a point well taken. The truth of this "irresistable revolution" will reveal itself even in spite of the trappings of a socio-economic system that exists as one of the primary obstacles to simplicity.
There's an interesting story in the boook in which Shane gets up to speak at a youth conference and is introduced as "the coolest Christian ever" or something like that. He was pretty upset about this, so he asked for a pair of scissors and cut off his dreadlocks right there on stage, and then talked about how Christianity shouldn't be about "cool". (The kids, he says, thought this was pretty cool.)
I'm inclined to forgive poor packaging (unless it includes the word "Xtreme", which is unpardonable) so long as the content is there, and I tend to think the author wouldn't have given it much thought. Maybe he did. It would be interesting to hear why he went with Zondervan, which does seem a bit strange now that you mention it. I just sent him an email, so maybe we'll find out.
If you're afraid that the cover/publisher reflects what's inside, my opinion is that it doesn't. If you think that the cover/publisher is odd and perhaps a bit hypocritical considering what's inside, you may be right.
giving away the profits?? I LOVE him already!
I should read it.
Post a Comment