Confronting the idol of consumerism is another important aspect of Shane Claiborne’s writing that he gets right. Through his unique story-telling gift, Shane points out our materialistic sins without resorting to manipulative guilt tactics. Even more, his simple way of following Jesus actively protests against the social order of materialistic greed that most of America embraces. By living out kingdom values in a communal setting within the “badlands” of Philadelphia, their community resembles the early Christians from the book of Acts. Like the early Christians, these believers (meet) together constantly and shared everything they had. Like the early Christians, they (sell) their possessions and shared the proceeds with those in need. Like the early Christians, they worship together… each day, meet in homes for the Lord’s supper and share their meals with great joy and generosity—all the while praising God and enjoying the good will of the people (Acts 2:44-47.) The alternative community that Shane and his cohorts model is so selflessly contrary to American consumer culture, even the pagans take notice and give glory to God for their good works (I Pet. 2:11-12).Nevertheless, despite outside comparisons to medieval monasticism, Claiborne’s simple way lifestyle rejects vows of poverty. Rather he and his companions articulate and live out a “theology of enough,” which compels them to redistribute their resources and share them with the poor. On top of that, Shane demonstrates from scripture that a large percentage of Old and New Testament giving was actually devoted to help the poor. However, instead of griping about the twisted stewardship values of American churches that give minimally to help the poor while spending much of their resources on elaborate buildings and extra staff, he and his group model a solution called the “relational tithe.” By pooling together 10% of their income (assumes one giving to the church first and scaling down of their lifestyle), people connected to Shane were able to meet many needs of the poor in their own community and throughout the world.
I am intrigued by the idea of a local church voluntarily tithing an extra portion of their income (besides what they normally give to the church) to redemptively help the poor. Maybe it would dispel the stereotype that one student of mine articulated at Thursday Night Hype last week of an inner-city church in the neighborhood (not Berean). He spoke of a neighborhood church pastor lining his pockets with cash from poor single mothers in the church, while the church did nothing significant about the condition of these poor people within the church and in the community. To him, why should he stop stealing stuff “to get his” when this certain pastor “steals” from the poor “to get his?”
In the end, Shane Claiborne helps us remove the blinders so we can finally see the idol of consumerism that holds sway over our lives.
3 comments:
Here is an issue where I almost disagree with Claiborne a little bit, at least to the degree to which he takes. I too hate extreme excess and wastes of money. And I believe we are to give generously. And I agree that a lot of churches misuse their funds (which is why I actually tithe to the International Justice Mission), but I don't think you can't enjoy money. I don't think I should feel bad is I bought an XBOX, or a new computer, or spent a night out on the town, at times while I read "Irresistible Revolution" I felt as if he was telling me I should.
I can see your point. Shane can come across as if the problem is both money and the love of money rather than the just the love of money (wow that was confusing).
I like I Tim. 6:17-18, which says, "Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share."
This passage points both to the generosity rich Christians are to demonstrate to the needy and indicates an enjoyment for what God provides. Unfortunately, its been my experience that many rich Christians are not as generous to the poor as they are with the enjoyment of their toys.
It amazes me to no end how we always go back to scripture to either support a person's popular book or use it to refute the author's points. Imagine if we just taught the Bible as God gave it and stopped promoting so many contemporary books of acts. Almost always, these authors are so out of balance with their hobby horses and personal convictions.
Post a Comment