I was similarly impacted by Shane --and he drew a similar reaction-- at Catalyst '07. Nice recap!

Yeah, you just can't take Shane as normative. Anyone who adopts a "monastic" lifestyle essentially says, "I realize this isn't mainstream, it's for the exceptionally devout." I understand why the crowd was subdued.

In the spirituality class, he's the guy who wrecks the curve.

I appreciate and admire the man. He's an advanced life form, and I only wish it were possible for that kind of generosity to become mainstream.

Shane is such a breath of fresh air. So important that we have him in the church today.

I agree with your appraisal of the response last night. Claiborne gives a moderate shock to evangelicals, and especially pastors. It's not enough to kill you, or enough to really make you mad. But it's like the buzz you get when your clothes washer shorts out and you touch the metal--it reminds you that you need to be grounded.

On the other hand, I wonder how many of us here in San Diego shared my response as I turned to my wife and said, "Our kids would like him." Shuffling off the responsibility and conviction.

Jarrod, I don't agree that "'Anyone who adopts a "monastic" lifestyle essentially says, 'I realize this isn't mainstream; it's for the exceptionally devout'"

I am almost finished reading The Irresistable Revolution and it is causing me to seriously reconsider a lot of long-held assumptions about American culture and how we live as Christians. A lot of churches reference Acts 2:42-47 as the model for the Christian church but the reality is that the typical American Christian's lifestyle looks a lot more like the typical American non-Christian's life style than Acts 2.

The lifestyle Shane Clayborne advocates is obviously not mainstream, but does that mean it's for the "exceptionally devout?" Or could it mean that the American Christian church has become more American than Christian?

Thoughtful comment, Paul. Is there a difference between a "radical Christian life" and the "normal Christian life"? Or must all Christians be radical to be considered Christian?

In other words, in Jesus' day, Peter, Andrew, James, and John left their fishing nets to follow Jesus in a radical way--being a disciple/apostle was a full-time gig. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were believers, too, but they remained members of the Sanhedrin. Matthew left his tax office to follow Jesus, but Zaccheus apparently continued to be a tax collector. In Acts, Cornelius was a Roman centurion, and when he became a believer, there's no indication he left his sword behind to follow Jesus full-time. Presumably he became a Christ follower who still served in the Roman Legion. The Philippian jailer (and his household) believed in Jesus, and he apparently continued to be a jailer.

Shane and other "radical Christians" live in full-time community with conspicuous distinctiveness. Is there a place for "normal Christians" who follow Jesus but who also live as faithful but inconspicuous citizens of the U.S.A.?

Jarrod, thanks for your reply. I appreciate the conversation.

I'm not suggesting (and Shane is not advocating) that every Christian ought to give up their "day job" and become a traveling evangelist. In fact, my understanding is Shane and everyone else at The Simple Way is expected to have at least a part time job in order to contribute financially to the common needs of the community.

The issue is whether "American Christian culture" - which is basically the pursuit of the American dream with some church mixed in - is really following Jesus.

Has God really called us to a lifestyle where we work 50 hours a week for a nice house in the suburbs, 2 cars, and fun recreational pursuits (but do it nicely and without too much drinking or swearing) and live more or less isolated from our neighbors, from the poor and the needy, and even from our brothers and sisters in Christ except for a couple of hours a week?

Or would it be more Christ-like if the average Christian lived in community where they shared their possessions, their living space, their time, and their meals?

Personally, I am not at the point where I'm ready to sell all I own and move my family into a commune, but I question whether I am really living a Christian lifestyle when I veg out in front of the TV a couple hours a night but rarely speak with my neighbors, claim to follow Jesus who was homeless but rarely helps the homeless, can rest comfortably in my home while brothers and sisters in my own church community are having their homes foreclosed on.

>>Is there a place for "normal Christians" who follow Jesus but who also live as faithful but inconspicuous citizens of the U.S.A.?

"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven. -- Matthew 5:14-16

Do you think you can obey these words of Jesus and live as an "inconspicuous citizen?"

funny how this post comes so hard on the heels of scot's post about pastors as personalities...

now, to shane's credit, his fame was likely thrust upon him. i doubt he thought equality with al mohler or td jakes 'something to be grasped'...

Thank you Paul and Jarrod for the most interesting conversation I have seen on Out of Ur for months. THESE are the questions that I struggle through daily, and there are many of us who are trying to work these things out. I look forward to more of your conversation...

Yes, Elle and Paul, I wrestle with these things, too. Do I have to reject American consumer culture to be a Christian? This "in the world but not of the world" thing is tough when you contemplate going into big debt for college and maybe more education. I long for the educational opportunities that only a certain amount of income can provide (or at least pay off later).

Can I be an incarnational Christian and own a house in the 'burbs? I sure hope so. Because I don't think Jesus would consider homeowning sinful.

Again, I love Shane's radical detachment from possessions. If he's the rich young ruler, he passes the test.

Can some of the rest of us be Barnabas, who has property and cashes in part of it to meet the needs he encounters?

For us more mainstream Christians, it's not "sell it all," it's "steward what you've been given"--and be cheerfully generous for a lifetime.

Shane seems to be an admirable man. I am from a neighborhood in Philly like the one he is doing ministry in.

His message is timely and important.

My following statements have nothing to do with him.

It has to do with the consumer mechanisms and culture that use him to communicate something to evangelicals.

I am perplexed by the attention he is getting and frankly I have wondered out loud if it is racial. Honestly, I know ministers in the community he serves who grew up there and are still there doing hardcore ministry. They seem to get no attention at all from evangelical magazines, publishers and the like.

They are people of color which is why I wonder about the racial aspect.

It pains me because Shane is doing something very radical and I dont want to take anything away from it. But many of us people of color know that many ignore the high risks we take by also staying in these communities.

Yet many dont recognize the inherent danger in that.

It seems like, from time to time, the evangelical subculture displays a paternalistic attitude toward American cities populated with people of color that places white Christians at the center of the issues.

Again, I dont attribute this to Shane. He seems to understand how this culture works. Yet the book deals and funding still flows almost exclusively in one direction.

Just something to make you think.

I have trouble with symbolism over substance (one of the reasons I left a mainstream church for Joel Hunter's Northland the Church Distributed). I have read Shane's book "Irresistable Revolution", and I understand that he lives what he preaches, so I don't doubt his sincerity; but wouldn't it have been more authentic and true to his beliefs for Shane to give his bag of money to the poor instead of giving a mere dollar to each of a bunch of pastors? How about if he had challenged the pastors to kick in some of their dollars to make a real impact in someone's life instead of just throwing it away in a big auditorium. Let's teach people to do something practical and significant, not perform trivial stunts.

Jerrod

>>Yes, Elle and Paul, I wrestle with these things, too.

I'm wrestling with these issues as well. My thoughts here are raw and rather unprocessed.

>>Do I have to reject American consumer culture to be a Christian?

I don't think so. To be a Christian simply means to accept God's gift of grace. However, I think the more we grow in our relationsip with the more we will see the American consumer culture to be in direct conflict with Jesus teachings to love God and love others.

I also think getting student loans to go to college and owning a house in the suburbs doesn't necessarily mean you've sold out to the American consumer culture. It really all depends on your motives and what you do with your degree and your house. Are you using them to live a safe life insulated from the needs of other people or are you using them to serve the needs of others?

>>Can some of the rest of us be Barnabas, who has property and cashes in part of it to meet the needs he encounters?

Absolutely!

Prophetik Soul, I think it's a good question to ask. African-American churches have been way out in front of predominantly white evangelical churches when it comes to wholistic minsitry - serving the poor, drug treatment, job training, etc.

And certainly black preachers and leaders have been criticizing America with its military/industrial complex, culture of greed, and general avoidance of poverty/justice issues for so long that many white Christians have tuned them out. Perhaps the only reason it gets noticed when Shane Claiborne refers to "the empire" is because its coming from a white, southern, former right wing guy.

But I do think one thing that sets Shane apart from anyone else I've seen is his call for Christians to live communally - freely sharing what they have, and the fact that he's been doing it for a decade. But then maybe there are black Shane Claibornes all around the country who I've just never heard of because they don't have book deals.

(FWIW, my understanding is that Shane Claiborne never sees any of the revenue that comes from his books, but they've obviously put the spotlight on him and given him a bigger megaphone to speak from.)

I'm not a fan of Shane. I've read his stuff.

I'm all for giving to the poor, but believe his Bible study has been done very poorly.

Paul --
yes, yes, yes. We have got to stop thinking that our alliance with the empire (to use the popular phrasing) is what it means to be Christian. I believe one can love Jesus and own an SUV, but there has to be some tension. I know in my own case (no SUV, but certainly some disposable income) the escape clause is "but how would it affect my family?". And I know that to be unfaithful, both to Jesus and my family.

The interesting thing to me about the purported righteousness of Shane's lifestyle (which he feels called to live - and calls others to live as well) is this; for all the folks who read his books and criticize the greed of most Christians, how many of those people are in reality changing their own lifestyle? Is there a major move toward a monastic/communal lifestyle that I have missed hearing about? According to most of these comments, we all admire Shane and his sacrificial lifestyle yet are not convinced that we would be any the more spiritual if we adopted it.

I think that when we take all of Jesus' teaching and interaction he had with others, as well as the whole counsel of God (IOW the Bible) we can see that the vast majority of those who Jesus impacted did not go out and live that lifestyle. For example, there is no record of Jesus telling the woman at the well to go live in a commune (no jokes please) nor did he suggest to the woman caught in adultry to do so ("go and sin no more..."). The Roman soldier whose daughter Jesus healed from a remote location was merely sent home; you get the picture. In the 10th chapter of Mark I am comforted by the verses that preceed 29 & 30. In 25, following the story of Nicodemus, Jesus tells his desciples that "...it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingsom of God." But look at 26 and 27: "And they were astonished out of measure, saying among themselves, Who then can be saved? And Jesus...said, with men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible." What strikes me as interesting is the fact that none of these men were rich by the standards of their own society. Furthermore, they were puzzled because they thought they had already given up everything for Jesus.

I recall when I was growing up that missionaries would routinely come to our church and give their slide presentation followed by a call to the 'mission field' to the young people. I always dreaded that this was what God was calling me to do and I didn't want to go. Then I felt guilty. God, in His graciousness, chose to give me a ministry that did not take me to a foreign land and is one that I do daily with joy. I'm sure Shane is filled with joy in what he does for the Lord. I think it is very important for Christians to be firm in their own minds and personal relationship with the Lord that they are walking in the center of his will. If God has called you to Macedonia to help and you refuse to go, you will be miserable. If he has called you to your own community and you go to Macedonia, you will be miserable.

Paul, his call to live communally is a radical one. I do agree. Your point is made. But his call to live communally is often already very present in many minority communities (although many are slowly moving away from it). It is often some surburban communities that are sometimes missing this element. In the city, if you do not have big money, you cannot even survive without being connected to others. What I appreciate about his stance is he attempts to show people how to do it Biblically. Many are communal in the city as a form of survival. The New Testament advocates this idea but it goes further because our reason for being together is to help others.

I appreciate your honesty. I just know that the lack of acknowledgement by my white suburban brothers and sisters continues to mirror the broader culture and that's disturbing to me. (But I know it also goes both ways.)

Thanks for responding.

Christiand David, my first response was like yours too. I thought, why didnt he ask them to give money for the poor.

But then I thought to myself, what is the sin of our country: self sufficiency and comfort.

I wonder if his point was not necessarily to get the folks to take the money. If they could afford the conference, they probably dont need it! LOL But was it to expose the illusion of self sufficiency that tends to govern our Christianity in the United States?

I may be wrong. But I will tell you one thing, that is how I would have done it. ;)

I believe that Ben Franklin said in effect, "If you continue to do what you've always done, you'll continue to get what you've alway's got."

As I see it, Shane has captured the heart of God.

Melody – I think a lot of Christians have been pursuing the American dream with Jesus as their co-pilot and have found that lifestyle stressful, isolating, and ultimately less than fulfilling. I do think there is a movement towards simplicity, towards community, towards making a difference in this world, towards justice, and towards ending poverty and senseless wars.

The more I think about it though, the more I think there is such a chasm between the lifestyle Shane is advocating and the average American Christian’s lifestyle that it would be virtually impossible for most to make that leap. I mean in my church many people are so comfortable in isolation that getting them to try out a small group that meets a couple of hours a week is like pulling teeth. Many are so comfortable in their middle-class isolation from the poor, that they are scared to death to spend just an hour serving food at a homeless shelter.

Our hearts for God, for our brothers and sisters in Christ, and for the disadvantaged is too small.

For most of us living the lifestyle Shane advocates is too big a leap right now. It’s great to have him articulate that vision, that ideal, so we know what is possible. But maybe the place to start is with small steps – serving in a homeless shelter or taking a short term missions trip to a poor country. And then see if God doesn’t work through those experiences to grow our hearts to want to do more.

Prophetik Soul – If you can point us towards other communities, minority or otherwise, that you know of where Christians are living in radical community, I think there are lots of people who would be interested to learn more about them.

Wheee! I love it! And I love your description of the unsure silence that followed. Hah!

Yay for communication through symbolic action. Someone's been learning about how Jesus taught.

I just still have trouble getting how he keeps getting given the floor. Making people uncomfortable like that.

"we can see that the vast majority of those who Jesus impacted did not go out and live that lifestyle"

Um...

"They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

Travis, you are absolutely correct in your scriptural quote from Acts 2. Just to clarify what I was talking about: the Acts 2 group of believers had not seen Jesus (who at this point has ascended back into heaven). They are the group of folks who were saved through the preaching of Peter. They were "baptized" and had received the gift of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. This is a different group of people from those that met Jesus directly. There does not seem to be any evidence of domicile changes during Jesus' tenure on earth. At least none are recorded in scripture. If you take my entire comment to the blogpost in context I think you will see that I am not speaking against Shane and his lifestyle. I am merely pointing out that the evidence that all Christians are to live that way is scant.

What I find most interesting is that a great many people will praise Shane without themselves choosing that lifestyle. They then critcize 'critics' of the lifestyle as if their mere assent to the validity of it gives them the same spiriuality as Shane. If I feel bad for the poor and talk about it alot, but don't actually do anything significant about it is this attributed to me as righteousness anyway?

Thank you Melody for your clear scripture based conclusions. Most of the other comments seem to be struggling on the fulcrum of doing "good" because of guilt OR doing "good" because of His love.....and grace.

Christian Dave:
"wouldn't it have been more authentic and true to his beliefs for Shane to give his bag of money to the poor instead of giving a mere dollar to each of a bunch of pastors?"

your response reminded me of the disciples in John 12, after mary anointed Jesus with the expensive perfume:

"Why wasn't this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year's wages." He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it."

The main idea is being missed. When debates are based on justifications for certain life styles we no longer are searching for what Jesus wants in our lives but why it's okay for us to live a certain way. There will always be words that make us uncomfortable. Why do these words make us feel that way? The questions we need to ask ourselves are "Am I actively trying to become more like Jesus, or am I trying to justify my way of life?" Living for Jesus is far more about our motives, the WHY, than the HOW. When we really turn our lives over to His kind of love our HOW will naturally change to match that love.